Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-09-11AGENDA ,fiE,M/ACTION ..... ACTIONS Board of Supervisom Meeting of. September 11, 2002 9:00 A.M. - Meefin.q Room 241. 1. Call to order. 2..P. !edge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda: (There were none,) 5.1 Approval of Minutes: February 6, March 25 (A), June 5, and July 3, 2002. APPROVED. 5.2 Proclamation recognizing October 2002 as Domestic ~/~)lence Awareness Month. ADOPTED. (A.~chment A) 5.3 Reallocate County's Match for VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds. APPROVED. 5.4 Resolution of Intent to include property identified as Tax Map 93A1, Parcel 2, co-owned by Albemarle County and Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department in ZMA-01-08, "Rivanna Village at Glenmore" rezoning. ADOPTED Resolution of Intent. r t (Attach.merit B) 5~5'Author~Ze County ExecUtive to execute deed and purchase agreement for Bimam Regional Stonmvater Basin and Pedestrian/Bike Path. AUTHORIZED County Executive to execute the deed (Attachment C) and Purchase Agreement (Attachment D). 5.6 Proclamation recognizing October 6 - 12, 2002 as Residents' Rights Week. ADOPTED. (Attachm,ent E) 6. Public hearing on the proposed issuance of general obligation school bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated principal amount not to exceed $8,700,000. The purpose of the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools. ADOPTED Resolution. (Attachment F) 7. SP-2001-046. Snows Rental Units (Sign #3). PH on a request to establish contractor's outdoor storage on TM 90, P35. APPROVED wi4 conditions recommended by .the PC. '8. Discussion: Mountain Protection Plan Ordinance. Discussion held. SET work session for 11/6. Not docketed: · Emergency Ordinance to Amend Chapter 16, Wastewater and Water Systems. ADOPTED. (Attachment H) Resolution expressing appreciation to Laurel Bentley Middaugh as she leaves the position of Deputy Clerk. ADOPTED. . (Attachment I) Septembe.r 13, 2002 ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., by the Chairman, Sally Thomas. BOS members present: Bowerman, Dorrier, Martin, Perkins, Rooker, and Thomas. Officers/staff: Tucker, Davis, Cilim ~berg, Bentley... 'Dep~y Clerk; Have Chairman sign minutes, then . pi .ace .on website and file original. Deputy. Cler. k; Mail original to Mrs. Diggs. Planning. staff: 'Planning'Staff; Notify vDoT. ' ......... Proceed as directed. None (proclamation given at the meeting).'" ' ~De, P~ .uty Clerk: Give 8 original COpies to Finance Department, file one copy. Deputy Clerk;.' List conditions. (Attachment G) Planning Staff: Incorporate comments/questions from the Board of Supervisors in order to address them at the work session. . ,Deputy.,(;ted(: .Advertise Public Hearing,. , Deputy Clerk: Forward original Ordinance to Bill Brent Cter.~ Frame Resolution and present to Ms. Middaugh. forward signed copy of deed and purchase agreement to Clerk's Office. Legal Services Assistant: Obtain signatures and From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Thomas said she received a subpoena earlier today to appear at an administrative headng on Foxfield violations. Mr. Martin said if she just received the subpoena today, she was not required to be present at such short notice. 10~ Adjour~ at 8i02 rP.m. Attachment A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH WHEREAS, violence against women, children and men continues to become mere prevalent as a social problem. In 20Of, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, domestic violence programs offered safe shelter to 3,145 victims of domestic violence; 24-hour intervention and referrals in response to 45,934 hotline cabs; 60,199 hours of counseling and advocacy to children; and, 93,246 hours of family violence advocacy services to women, children and men; and WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but cross all economic, racial and societal banfers; and are supported by societal indifference; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual's privacy, dignity, security and humanity, due to systematic use of physicS, emotional, sexual, psychological and economic control and/or abuse. The impact of domestic violence is wide-ranging, directly affecting women and children and society as a whole; and in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often suffer grave financial, physical and psychological losses; and WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts to bring peace and equa#ty to the home; NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the important work being done by domestic violence programs, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of OCTOBER, 2002, as DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH and urge all citizens to actively participate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to wOrk toward the elimination of personal and institutional violence against women, children and men. Signed and sealed this f fth day of September 2002. CHAIRMAN Attachment B RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the parcel identified as Tax Map 93A1 Pamel 2 (the "parcel") is co-owned by the County of Albemarle (the =County") and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated; and WHEREAS, the parCel is currently zoned Rural Areas (PA), but is Ioca{ed within a proposed planned development that has been identified as the "Rivanna Village at Glenmore,' which is the subject of Zoning Map Amendment ("ZMA") 01-08; and WHEREAS, ZMA 01-08 proposes to change the zoning of the lands comprising the proposed Rivanna Village at Glenmore from Rural Areas (PA) to a planned development zoning district in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, authorizing the parcel to be reviewed and considered as part of ZMA 01-08 will assure that, if ZMA 01-08 is approved, the lands within the proposed planned development can be planned and developed asa whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the zoning of the parcel as part of ZMA 01-08, as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning map amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of SupervisOrs at the earliest possible date. !, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution of Intent duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, at a meeting held on September 11, 2002, Clerk, B°ard of County Supervisors Attachment C PREPARED BY TAYLOR, ZUNK,~ MILNOR & CARTER, LTD. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portions of 61-18C, 18D, 19 & 28 THIS DEED, made this 28th day of August, 2002, by and between PIERSON PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as Grantor and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee, whose address is: 410 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10:00) cash in hand paid and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGUSH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto Grantee; All those certain pamels of land lying in Albemarle County, Virginia more particularly described as Parcel Z containing 1.1438 acres and a 1.585 acre portion of Parcel 19, both to be added to and to become a part of Revised T.M. 61 Parcel 28 as shown on a plat of Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated August 12, 2002, said plat attached to and made a part of this instrument. Reference is made to said plat for a further and more particular description of the property herein conveyed. The proPerty herein conveyed is a portion of the property conveyed to Grantor by deed from Pierson Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, dated March 20, 2002 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of fl~e Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed book 2172, page 351. This conveyance is made expressly subject to the easements, conditions, restrictions and resen/ations contained in duly recorded deeds, plats, and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the property hereby conveyed, which have not expired by a limitation of time contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the conveyance of the interest in real estate made by this Deed and on the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein. This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code § 58.1-801, pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-811(A)(3). WITNESS the following signatures and seals. Attachment D CONTRACT OF PURCHASE THIS CONTRACT OF PURCHASE is made as of August 14, 2002, between Pierson Properties, U.C, a Virginia limited liability company, owner of record of the Property sold herein (the "Seller"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Purchaser"). I. REAL PROPERTY: Purchaser agreesto buy and Seller agrees to sell that land (the "Property"), located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and described as: Parcel Z containing 1.1438 acres and a 1.585 acre portion of Parcel 19, both to be added to and become a part of Revised T.M. 61 Parcel 28 as shown on a plat of Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated August 12, 2002 and attached hereto. 2. PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase pdce is One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($100,000.00), payable at settlement. 3. SETTLEMENT AND POSSESSION: Settlement shall be made at Taylor, Zunka, Milner & Carter, Ltd. on or about September 30, 2002 ("Settlemenff), Possession shall be given at Settlement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties. 4. STANDARD PROVISIONS: All of the Standard Provisions on the attached EXHIBIT A are incorporated by reference and shall apply to this Contract. 5. APPROVAL: This Agreement has been approved or authorized for approval by a duly recorded vote of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. EXHIBIT A STANDARD PROVISIONS A. EXPENSES AND PRORATIONS. Seller agrees to pay the expense of preparing the Deed, certificates for nomforeign status and Form 1099-S and the recordation tax applicable to grantors. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Pumhaser in connection with this pumhase, including, without limitation, title examination, insurance premiums, survey costs, recording Costs, loan document preparation costs and fees of Purchasers attomey, shall be borne by Purchaser. Real estate ta~.s shall be prorated as of Settlement. B. TITLE. At settlement, Seller shall convey to Purchaser good and marketable fee simple title to the Propaly by Deed of general warranty containing English Covenants of Title, free of all liens, defects and encumbrances, e~ept as otherwise indicated herein, and subject only to such restrictions and easements as shall then be of record which do not affect the use of the Property for its intended purposes or render the title unmarketable. If a defect is found which can be remedied by legal action within a reasonable time, Seller shall, at SelleFs expense, promptly take such action as is necessary to cure the defect. If Seller, acting in good faith, is unable to ~have such defect corrected within 60 days after notice of such defect is given to Seller, then either Seller or Pumhaser may terminate this Contract. Pumhaser may extend the date for Settlement to the extent necessary for Seller to comply with this Paragraph. C. RISK OF LOSS. All dsk of loss or damage to the Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or other cause, or taking by eminent domain, is assumed by Seller until Settlement. D. AFFIDAVITS AND CERTIFICATES. Seller shall deliver to Purchaser an affidavit to the effect that no labor or materials have been furnished to the Property within the statutory period for the ~ing of mechaniCs' or materialmen's liens against the Property or, if labor or materials have been furnished, that the costs thereof have been paid. Seller shall also deliver to Purchaser the certificates required by Sections 1445 (FIRPTA) and 6045 (Form 1099-S) of the Internal Revenue Cede. E. ASSIGNABILITY. This Contract may not be assigned by either Seller or Purchaser without the written consent of the other. F. TITLE INSURANCE NOTIFICATION. The Purchaser may wish at Purchaser's expense to purchase owner's title insurance. Depending on the particular circumstances of the transaction, such insurance could include affirmative coverage against possible mechanics' and materialmen's liens for labor and materials performed prior to settlement and which, though not recorded at the time of recordation of the Purchaser's deed, could be subsequently recorded and would adversely affect Purchaser's title to the Property. The coverage afforded by such title insurance will be governed by the terms and conditions thereof, and the dollar amount of the cost of obtaining such title insurance coverage. G. MISCELLANEOUS. The parties to this Contract agree that it shall be binding upon them, and their respective personal representatives, successors and assigns; that its provisions shall be merged into the Deed delivered at Settlement and shall not sun/ive Settlement. If any amendment is made, it is agreed that unless amended in writing, this document contains the final agreement between the parties hereto, and that they shall not be bound by any terms, conditions, oral statements, warranties or representations not herein contained; end that it shall be construed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. H. DEFAULT. If Seller or Purchaser defaults under this Contract, the non-defaulting party shall have all remedies available at law or in equity and the defaulting party shall be liable for any damages and all expenses incurred by the non-defaulting party in connection with this transaction and the enforcement of this Contract, including, without limitation to, attorneys' fees and costs, if any. Attachment E Residents' Rights Week Whereas, residents of long term care facilities are one of our greatest resources; and Whereas, the federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987 guarantees residents their rights in order to promote and maintain their dignity and autonomy; and Whereas, residents across to country will be celebrating Residents' Rights Week to give voice to the need for high quality care; and Whereas, Resident Councils provide a voice for individuals who reside in long term care settings; and Whereas, Family Councils enhance family participation and quality of life; and Whereas, these residents should be aware of their rights so they may be empowered to live with dignity and self-determination; Whereas, we wish to honor and celebrate these citizens, to recognize their rich individuality, and to reaffirm their rights as community members and citizens; and, Now, therefore, ! Sally Thomas, Chairperson of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim October 6-12 as Residents' Rights Week Monday, ~October 7~h as Resident Council D..ay Saturday, October 1'~ as Family Council Day in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage all citizens to join me in these important observances. Signed this 11t~ day of September 2002. Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 8 Attachment F RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 2002A, OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,700,000 TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the ~Board") of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to exceed $8,700,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and WHEREAS, the County held a public headng, duly noticed, on September 11, 2002, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and WHEREA~, the School Board of the County has, by resolution adopted August 22, 2002, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and consented to the issuance Of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $8,700,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested") from the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase pdce for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the 'VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA's bonds; and WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is greater than or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds set forth in section 1 below does not exceed the amount of the discount the purchase price to be paid to the'County, given the VPSA Purchase Pdce Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization .of Bonds and Use ,of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,700,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes as described in Exhibit B. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale of the Bonds, It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of the VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price, determined by the VPS^ to be fair and accepted by the Chairman of the Board and the County Executive, or either of them, that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds may be sold for a purchase price not lower than 97.5% of the PrOceeds Requested if issuing the Bonds in the maximum principal amount authorized by Section 1 of this Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA Purchase Price 9 Objective and market conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, am hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of October 1, 2002 (the "Bond Sale Agreement"), with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA. The Bond Sale Agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall he designated ~Generai Obligation School Bonds, Series 200ZA"; shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning July 15, 2003 (each an ~interest Payment Date"), at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a =Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the "Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution. 4. t,n,tarest,Rates and PrinciDal Installments. The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be ten one.hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the %/PSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed five and sixly one-hundredths percent (5.60%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The County E~cutive is hereby authorized and directed to aCcept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amOunt of the Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution and provided further that the final maturity of the Bonds occurs no later than December 31, 2022. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authOrized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the, Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. the Bonds: Payment: Pavin_~ Aaent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to (a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment Or redemption. (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds. (c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as bond registrar and paying agent for the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar'). The County may, in its sole discretion, replace at any time the Bond Registrar with another qualified bank or trust company as successor Bond Registrar. 7. PrepaYment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2012, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2012, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2012, and the definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2012, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior 10 to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2012, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Da..te~ Prices July 15, 2012 through July 14, 2013 July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2014 July 15, 2014 and thereafter 101% 100% ]00 Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less then sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. 8. ExeCution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman, either of whom may act, and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board, either of whom may act, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 9. Pledae of Full, Faith aim credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitr~e. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or offiCers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of .Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations 'contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State. Non-Arbitraae Pr~ram: Proce. eds. Aflreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Director of Finance to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuina Disclqsure A..qmement. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby 11 authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and E~change Commission Rule 15c2-12 and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). I3. Filina .of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 14. Further Acfiqns. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any sUch action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board Of Supervisors held on September 11, 2002, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract, i hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, dudng the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. Members present at the meeting ware: David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; Dennis S. Rooker; and Sally H. Thomas. Members absent from the meeting were: (none). Members voting in favor of the foregoing resolution were: David P. Bowerman; Lindsa-y G. Dorder, Jr.; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; Dennis S. R0oker; and Sally H. Thomas. Members voting against the foregoing resolution were: (nOne). Members abstaining from voting on the foregoing resolution were: (none). 12 Attachment G CONDITIONS SP~2001-046 Snow's Rental Units;,Tax Map 90, paine.! 35 The height of stored items shall be limited to 8 (eight) feet in the front row of storage areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back mw;, 8 (eight)-foot high solid wood fencing of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used for the north and south perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that connect storage yards in the front.row, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the back .ro~, Chain link fence shall not be visible from the EC; and, Landscaping of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used to soften the appearance of the development and to integrate the site. 13 Attachment H ORDINANCE NO. I)2-16(E)(1) AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 16, WASTEWATER AND WATER SYSTEMS OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY AMENDING ARTICLE V, CONSERVATION OF WATER. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 16 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Wastewater and Water Systems, is amended as follows: By Amending: Article V. Conservation of Water. Sec. 16-500. Conservation of Water During Emergencies. Chapter 16. Wastewater and Water Systems Article V. Conservation of Water Sec. 16-500. Conservation of Water During Emergencies. A. Should the board of supervisors, at any time, declare there to be an emergency in the county arising wholly or substantially out of a shortage of water supply, the Albemarle County Service Authority (the "authority'~ and its Executive Director (the "executive director") are hereby authorized during continuation of the water emergency to order the restriction or prohibition of any or all uses of the water supply, including but not limited to: 1. Watering of outside shrubbery, trees, lawn, grass, plants, home vegetable gardens, or any other vegetation, except from a watering can or Other container not exceeding three (3) gallons in capacity. This limitation shall not apply to commercial greenhouses or nursery stocks, which may be watered in the minimum amount required to preserve plant life before 7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. 2. Washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, or any other type of mobile equipment, except in licensed commercial vehicle wash facilities. 3. Washing of sidewalks, Streets, driveways, parking Iots~ service station aprons, exteriors of homes or apartments, commercial or industrial buildings or any other outdoor surface, except where mandated by federal, state, or local law. 4. The operation of any ornamental fountain or other structure making a similar use of water. 5. The filling of swimming or wading pools requiring more than five gallons of water, or the refilling of swimming or wading pools which were drained after the effective date of the declaration of emergency, except that pools may be filled to a level of two feet below normal, or water may be added to bdng the level to two feet below normal, or as necessary to 14 protect the structure from hydrostatic damage, for pools constructed or contracted for on or before the effective date of the declaration of emergency restrictions. 6. The use of water from fire hydrants for any purpose other than fire suppression, unless otherwise approved by the executive director. 7. The serving of ddnking water in restaurants, except upon request. 8. The operation of any water-cooled comfort air conditioning that does not have water conserving equipment in operation. 9. Any additional water use restriction deemed necessary, The above restrictions, or any of them, shall become effective upon their being printed in any newspaper of general circulation in the county, or broadcast upon any radio or television station serving the county. B. Upon implementation of subsection A, above, the authority shall establish an appeals procedure to review customer applications for exemptions from the provisions of subsections A on a case by case basis and, if warranted, to make equitable adjustments to such provisions. The authority shall also be empowered to establish regulations governing the granting of temporary exemptions applicable to ali or some of the uses of the water supply set forth in subsection A. The authority shall, in deciding applications, balance economic and other hardships to the applicant resulting from the imposition of water use restrictions or allocations against the individual and cumulative impacts to the water supply resulting from the granting of exemptions. C. Should measures taken pursuant to subsection A of this section prove insufficient to preserve sufficient supplies of water for the citizens of the county, the authority and its executive director are hereby further authorized to impose temporary rate increases or surcharges on the consumption of water, to restrict or discontinue the supply of water to any industrial or commercial activity which uses water beyond the sanitary and drinking needs of its employees and invitees, to declare a moratorium on new water conneCtions to buildings issued a building permit after the date of declaration of emergency, and to restdct water use to basic human needs only. D. Any person violating any provision of this section, or any order of the executive director of the authority issued pursuant to the author'~j granted hereunder shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. In addition, the executive director of the authority is hereby authorized to terminate the water service, for the duration of the emergency, to any person convicted of such violation. E. In addition to the penalties set forth in subsection D, above, the authority and the executive director may impose penalty charges on any person violating any provision of this section. Such penalty charges shall be in an amount determined by the authority and shall be imposed on the violator's next water bill. If such penalty charges are not paid when due, the executive director of the authority is authorized to terminate the water service and take any additional measures authorized by law. Persons who have been assessed a penalty charge shall have the right to challenge the assessed charge by providing a written notice to the executive director of the 15 authority within ten (10) days of the date of the assessment of the penalty charge. The executive director or his designee shall determine whether the penalty charge was properly assessed and notify the complaining person in writing of his determination. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the executive director may appeal that decision to a committee of the authority's board by filing an appeal in writing within five (5) days of notice of the executive director's decision. The executive director or his designee, or upon apPeal, the committee of the authority's board, may waive the penalty charge if it is determined that the violation occurred due to no fault of the person. F. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the authority and its executive director from rescinding any orders issued thereunder when the conditions creating the need for such orders have abated. G. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the authority and its executive director from exercising any and all powers and taking any and all actions authorized by the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Virginia Code §§ 15.2-5100, et al.\ H. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately, being adopted under emergency procedUres pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1427, and shall remain in effect not longer than sixty days unless readopted in conformity with the applicable provisions of the Virginia Code. (Ord. 00-16(1), 8-2-00; Ord. 02-16(E)(1), 9-11-02) State law reference-Va. Code §15,2-924. 16 Attachment I We, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, recognize and ex-press our appreciation to for her valuable contributions to the Albemarle County community as a County employee in the Board of Supervisors' office since 1997; for her leadership in County-wide customer service initiatives that will leave a lasting legacy among her co-workers; for her significant contributions in overseeing the Boards and Commissions' process, and working closing with members of those committees; and for her involvement and assistance in overseeing the electronic documentation of archival records. Laurie's professionalism and dedication to the members of the Board of Supervisors is very much appreciated and will be missed. We, as a community, are strengthened by the contributions and commitment of employees such as Laude Bentley Middaugh whose dedication and professionalism help make Albemarle County a better place to live and work. Signed and sealed this 11~ day of September 2002. David P. Bowerman Lindsay G. Denier, Jr. Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Dennis S, Rooker Sally H. Thomas 17 From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors F_llo Washington Corey, CMC, Cle~_~ / Reading List for September I I, 20~ September 9, 2002 February 6, 2002 March 25 (A), 2002 June 5, 2002 July 3, 2002 Pages I - 27 (end with Item #t2) - Ms. Thomas Ms. Thomas Pages I - 26 - Mr. Dorrier Pages I - 22 (end at Item # 13) - Mr. 8owerman NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM. /ewc DOMESTIC VIOLENCE A WARE, NESS MONTH WHEREAS, violence agagnst women, children and men continues to~ become more prevalent as a social problen~ In 2001, in the Comm~mvealth of Virginia, domestic violence programs offered safe shelter to 3,145 victims of domestlc violence; 244tour interven~n and referrals in response to 45,934 hotline calls,- 60,199 honrs of counseling and advocacy to cJtiJdren; attd, 93,246 hoars of family violence advocacy services to ~men, children and men; and the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups of people but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers,, and are supported by soc~rtal indifference;' and the crime of dome~dc violence violates an indlvidmtPs privacy, dignity, security and humanity, dtte to sys~n~ic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychologiaal and econotnic control ami/or abtts~ The impact of domestic violence is ~de-ranging, direetIy affecting women and ch~dren and society as a whole; and in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by perpetrating violence, we must also meet the needs of v'u~7~ns of dotne~dc violence who often suff~ grave finan~ physiaal and psychological losses,, and it is ~ of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront of efforts to bring peace and equality to the NO~, TttEREFORE, in recognition of the important work behtg done by domestic violence programs, I, Sally ti. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of OCTOBER, 2002, as 1K)~C VIOLENCE AW~ MONIIt ami urge all citizens to aet~vely pad, ate in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency to work toward the elimination of personal and intentional violence against women, children Signed and sealed this 1 lth day of geptetnber 2002~ 2~ ~ea~ o~ ~e~Zce to the August 13, 2002 Ms. ~Sally Thomas Albemarle County BOard of Supervisors 402 MacIntire Road Charl°ttesville, VA 22902 Shelter Working to end domsstic violence in our community Dear Ms. Thomas As you may already:know, the Shelter for Helpin Emergency is dedicated to ending violence within the home, and October isa very-important ti~ne for the shelter t° edUcate the community about domestic violence. The Shelter not only provideS emergency housing ~and operates a 24-hour hotline.but also provides coUnseling, information and referral, legal advoCacy and Court aCcompanimeht, and educati°nai prOgrams t° the residents of Albemarle County and Planning District Ten. ' 'We'are writing to request that youpr0claim October as 'Domestic ViolenCe Awareness Month.' Enclosed please find a sample proclamation; you can sign this cOpyor type one ~ofYour own tO.be acCompanied byan official seal.' We would like to have'a CoPy for our records as Well because we often like to frame and post the proclamations. · Wewould greatly appreciate your support-in helPing end ~domestic violence, in our community. Please placethis proclamation on the agenda for the September 11~ 2002, meeting, as representativesfrom the Shelter wOuld like,to be present at thiS meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. Sincerely, Brandi Painter Assistant Director 0.8:'.1 5.-0 2 .~. I 0 · . , ' S~helter for Help,in Emergency Box 3013 University station · Charlottesville, V rginia 22903-0013; H°~line: (434) 293-8509 · OffiCe: (434) 293-6155 Website: shelterforhelpinemergency;org, Proclamation Vioi6nce ~ social Violence and advoc 246 iOle~c _ · acy tOchild~en; and~ '93; hours of family v e advocacy services t© .~ -~ " ' economic, .ranging~ · e; and" the iaWbY f domestic violence.who iWltEREAs,' Itis victims of domestic vi01e~ce themselves who have been in the -. ~ ~' f°~efr°nt °f~ffortS to bring peace and equality tffthe h6me::- : . ~ of OctOber (date) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Use of County MatCh for VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to use County's match for VDOT revenue sharing funds allocated for Old Lynchburg Road to fund two other projects: 1) Airport Road; and, 2) Hollymead traffic circle. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Kelsey, Wade AGENDA DATE: September 11, 2002 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: No BACKGROUND: The County has been awarded $900,000 in Airport Access Funds for use on the Airport Road improvement project between Rt. 29 and Rt. 606. To receive the funds, the County must match this grant with $300,000, resulting in a total project cost of $1,200,000. Funds proffered with the North Fork Research Park development totaling approximately $78,000 can be used toward the needed match. Staff is proposing that the remaining $222,000 come from revenue sharing funds set aside in the ClP. The County is also in the process of designing a traffic circle in the Hollymead subdivision at the intersection of Powell Creek Drive and the entrance to the Springridge development. The cost of the traffic circle is approximately $150,000. The developer of the Springridge subdivision has proffered $100,000 toward traffic calming measures in the neighborhood, which will be used towards this project. The County must fund the remaining $50,000. The traffic calming measures, including this traffic circle, were considered an important component of the approval and development of the Springridge project to address potential traffic concerns (speeding, cut-through traffic)resulting from the opening of the road over the Lake Hollymead dam, connecting Hollymead to Forest Lakes. DISCUSSION: Staff is requesting that the Board allow $272,000 ($222,000 for Airport Road project, $50,000 for the Hollymead traffic circle) in County funds currently allocated to match VDOT revenue sharing funds for the Old Lynchburg Road project (south of 1-64 to Rt. 708) to be used instead to cover the County cost for the above noted projects. The Board of Supervisors had previously allocated $500,000 in the CIP towards the Old Lynchburg Road project. Due to VDOT projected financial shortfalls over the next six years, this project has been postponed until December 2008, at the earliest. VDOT has not re- allocated the revenue sharing funds and match for this project to any other project in the Six-Year Secondary Plan budget. Th e delay in completion of Old Lynchburg Road will allow the County to replace the $272,000 with future revenue sharing funds. The infusion of Airport Access funds to the Airport Road project will "free up" $1,200,000 in the Six Year Secondary Plan. This will allow funds to be reallocated to the Jarman's Gap Road project so that it can stay on its previous schedule, prior to the State budget shortfall. This will eliminate the expected two year delay in the project. The Hollymead traffic circle is not eligible for VDOT traffic calming funds in the Six Year Secondary Plan because it was not a project initiated by VDOT. The developer of the Springridge project will construct the traffic circle. The County will reimburse the developer for the County's share of the project. AGENDA TITLE: Use of County Match for VDOT Revenue Sharing Funds September 11,2002 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the use of $272,000 Revenue Sharing matching funds currently designated for the Old Lynchburg Road project to instead match an Airport Access Fund grant for the Airport Road project ($222,000) and for the Hollymead Traffic Circle project ($50,000). 02.137 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Authorization to enter into rezoning request for ZMA 01-08 Rivanna Village at Glenmore SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Resolution of Intent to Include Property identified as Tax Map 93A1 Parcel 2 which is co-owned by Albemarle County and Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department in ZMA 01-08 "Rivanna Village at Glenmore" rezoning. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Ms. Echois BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: September 11, 2002 ACTION: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes IREVIEWED BY: ~F / In 2001, Glenmore Associates asked the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department and Albemarle County, co-owners of the property identified as Tax Map 93A1 Parcel 2, to enter into ZMA 01-08, Rivanna Village at Glenmore. The location of the station is shown on the attached copy of the proposed master plan for the Rivanna Village (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: Although the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department does not desire to move to a different location, it does desire to become a part of ZMA 01-08. By entering into the rezon~ng, the County staff and the Fire Department believe that where appropriate, circulation changes can be made which will be more advantageous to the full development of this designated development area. The attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment C) authorizes the County to enter into the rezoning request as a co-owner of the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the attached Resolution of Intent be approved as written. 02.140 -- RIVANNA VILI~J~G AT GLEN ;-:-------Z.'2' ' ' \',,' , \;i. it'' : ;i I ,'// ~¢il/~ S TE IR,. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT B C°%o~v EAST RIVANNA FIRE STATION ~1 'ENMORE PI~ II $"T2 LOIS I thru 71 D.B. 1970 Pg. 585 sc~.~ ,. ~'~ , SCOTTSVlLLE DISTRICT '~=--° .... "° ', SECTION 93AI RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the parcel identified as Tax Map 93A1 Parcel 2 (the "parcel") is co- owned by the County of Albemarle (the "County~) and the East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department, Incorporated; and WHEREAS, the parcel is currently zoned Rural Areas (PA), but is located within a proposed planned development that has been identified as the "Rivanna Village at Glenmore," which is the subject of Zoning Map Amendment ("ZMA") 01-08; and WHEREAS, ZMA 01-08 proposes to change the zoning of the lands comprising the proposed Rivanna Village at Glenmore from Rural Areas (PA) to a planned development zoning district in a manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, authorizing the parcel to be reviewed and considered as part of ZMA 01-08 will assure that, if ZMA 01-08 is approved, the lands within the proposed planned development can be planned and developed as a whole. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the zoning of the parcel as part of ZMA 01-08, as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the zoning map amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution of Intent duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, at a meeting held on September 11, 2002. Clerk, Board of Coun~ Supe~j~sors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Birnam Regional Stormwater Basin And Pedestrian/Bike Path S U BJ ECT/PROPOSALIREQU EST: BOS approval of County Executive authority to execute the deed and purchase agreement. AGENDA DATE: September 11, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Re-division Plat, Deed, and Purchase Agreement STAFF CONTACT(S): REVIEWED BY: Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Trank, Kelsey BACKGROUND: The Birnam Regional Stormwater Basin and Pedestrian/Bike Path is a Capital Improvement Project to be located behind Whitewood Park. The purpose of the basin is to relieve flooding and erosion problems associated with the channel adjacent to Four Seasons Drive and Dominion Drive. This stormwater control facility was identified in the Urban Drainage Study completed by the Engineering Department in 1984. The Pedestrian/Bike Path project replaced the Greenbrier Drive Extension. Its purpose is to complete the pedestrian link between the Greenbrier Drive/Whitewood Road intersection and Townwood Lane. At the direction of the Board (03-15-00), the County Attorney and Engineering Department proceeded with acquisition of the land necessary for the basin and the pedestrian/bike path. The land to be acquired for the basin was one of three adjoining parcels included within the Minor-Hargis Estate. During the negotiations, the Estate opted to sell all three parcels to a private land developer. The developer proceeded to prepare a site plan for the "Webland Park" townhouse community and coordinated the design with the County plans for a regional basin and pedestrian/bike path. This '~Nebland Park" site plan was approved February 7, 2002. DISCUSSION: The County Attomey, Engineering Department, and the developer have negotiated the division of the property, physical improvements, and a fair and reasonable price for the acquisition. A re-division plat, deed, and the purchase agreement have been enclosed for your reference. The re-division plat provides the County with 2.729 acres forthe stormwater management basin, and pedestrian/bike path, and a!so provides a "greenspace" link to the open space areas of Townwood, Wynridge, and the Minor Townhouses developments. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the County Executive to execute the deed and purchase agreement. 02.139 CONTRACT OF PURC~ASF, THIS CONTRACT OF PURCHASE is made as of August 14, 2002, between Pierson Properties, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, owner of record of the Property sold herein (the "Seller"), and the County of Albemarle, Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Purchaser"). 1. REAL PROPERTY: Purchaser agrees to buy and Seller agrees to sell that land (the "Property',), located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and described as: Parcel Z containing 1.1438 acres and a 1.585 acre portion of Parcel 19, both to be added to and become a part of Revised T.M. 61 Parcel 28 as shown on a plat of Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated August 12 2002 and attached hereto. ' 2. PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price is One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($100,000.00), payable at settlement. 3. SETTLEMENT AND POSSESSION: Settlemenu shall be made at Taylor, Zunka, Milnor & Carter, Ltd. on or about September 30, 2002 ("Settlement,,). Possession shall be given at Settlement, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties. 4. STANDARD PROVISIONS: Ail of the Standard Provisions on the attached EXHIBIT A are incorporated by reference and shall apply to this Contract. 5. APPROVAL: This Agreement has been approved or authorized for approval by a duly recorded vote of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Pierson Properties, LLC County of Albemarle, Virginia By: Joshua Goldschmidt By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Approved as to form: County Attorney EXHIBIT A STANDARD PROVISIONS A. EXPENSES AND PRORATIONS. Seller agrees to pay the expense of preparing the Deed, certificates for non-foreign status and Form 1099-S and the recordation tax applicable to grantors. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Purchaser in connection with this purchase, including, without limitation, title examination, insurance premiums, survey costs, recording costs, loan document preparation costs and fees of Purchaser,s attorney, shall be borne by Purchaser. Real estate taxes shall be prorated as of Settlement. B. TITLE. At settlement, Seller shall convey to Purchaser good and marketable fee simple title to the Property by Deed of general warranty containing English Covenants of Title, free of all liens, defects and encumbrances, except as otherwise indicated herein, and subject only to such restrictions and easements as shall then be of record which do not affect the use of the Property for its intended purposes or render the title unmarketable. If a defect is found which can be remedied by legal action within a reasonable time, Seller shall, at Seller's expense, promptly take such action as is necessary to cure the defecE. If Seller, acting in good faith, is unable to have such defect correcEed within 60 days after notice of such defect is given to Seller, then either Seller or Purchaser may terminate this Contract. Purchaser may extend the date for Settlement to the extent necessary for Seller to comply with this Paragraph. C. RISK OF LOSS. All risk of loss or damage to the Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or other cause, or taking by eminent domain, is assumed by Seller until Settlement. D. AFFIDAVITS AND CERTIFICATES. Seller shall deliver to Purchaser an affidavit to the effect that no labor or materials have been furnished to the Property within the statutory period for the filing of mechanics, or materialmen,s liens against the Property or, if labor or materials have been furnished, that the costs thereof have been paid. Seller shall also deliver to Purchaser the certificates required by Sections 1445 (FIRPTA) and 6045 (Form 1099-S) of the Internal Revenue Code. E. ASSIGNABILITY. This Contract may not be assigned by either Seller or Purchaser without the written consent of the other. F. TITLE INSURANCE NOTIFICATION. The Purchaser may wish at Purchaser's expense to purchase owner's title insurance. Depending on the particular circumstances of the transaction, such insurance could include affirmative coverage against possible mechanics' and materialmen,s liens for labor and materials performed prior to settlement and which, though not recorded at the time of recordation of the Purchaser,s deed, could be subsequently recorded and would adversely affect Purchaser,s title to the Property. The coverage afforded by such title insurance will be governed by the terms and conditions thereof, and the dollar amount of the cost of obtaining such title insurance coverage. G. MISCELLANEOUS. The parties to this Contract agree that it shall be binding upon them, and their respective personal representatives, successors and assigns; that its provisions shall be merged into the Deed delivered at Settlement and shall not survive Settlemenm. If any amendment is made, it is agreed that unless amended in writing, this document contains the final agreement between the parties hereto, and that they shall not be bound by any terms, conditions, oral statements, warranties or representations not herein contained; and that it shall be construed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. H. DEFAULT. If Seller or Purchaser defaults under this Contract, the non-d~faulting party shall have all remedies available at law or mn equity and the defaulting party shall be liable for any damages and all expenses incurred by the non- defaulting party in connection with this transaction and the enforcement of this Contract, including, without limitation to, attorneys, fees and costs, if any. PREPARED BY TAYLOR, ZUNKA, MILNOR & CARTER, LTD. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Portions of 61-18C, 18D, 19 & 28 THIS DEED, made this 28th day of August, 2002, by and between PIERSON PROPERTIES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as Grantor and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred to as Grantee, whose address is: 410 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 W I T N E S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantors do hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto Grantee; All those certain parcels of land lying in Albemarle County, Virginia more particularly described as Parcel Z containing 1.1438 acres and a 1.585 acre portion of Parcel 19, both to be added to and to become a part of Revised T.M. 61 Parcel 28 as shown on a plat of Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated August 12, 2002, said plat attached to and made a part of this instrument. Reference is made to said plat for a further and more particular description of the property herein conveyed. The property herein conveyed is a portion of the property conveyed to Grantor by deed from Pierson Properties, Inc., a Virginia corporation, dated March 20, 2002 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed book 2172, page 351. This conveyance is made expressly subject to the easements, conditions, restrictions and reservations consained in duly recorded deeds, plats, and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the property hereby conveyed, which have not expired by a limitation of time contained therein or have not otherwise become ineffective. The Grantee, acting by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby accept the conveyance of the interest in real estate made by this Deed and on the terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein. This deed is exempt from state recordation taxes imposed by Virginia Code ~ 58.1-801, pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1- 811 (A) (3) . WITNESS the followin9 signatures and seals. GRANTOR: Pierson Properties, LLC Joshua A. Goldschmidt, Co-Manager David A. Souza, Co-Manager GRANTEE: County of Albemarle, Virginia By: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Approved as to form: County Attorney STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , TO-WIT: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002, on behalf of Pierson Properties, LLC by Joshua A. Goldschmidt and David A. Souza, its Co-Managers. My commission expires: Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2002 by Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia. My Commission Expires: Notary Public Residents' Rights Week Whereas, residents of long term care facilities are one of our greatest resources; and Whereas, the federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987 guarantees residents their rights in order to promote and maintain their dignity and autonomy; and Whereas, residents across to country will be celebrating Residents' Rights Week to give voice to the need for high quality care; and Whereas, Resident Councils provide a voice for individuals who reside in long term care settings; and Whereas, Family Councils enhance family participation and quality of life; and Whereas, these residents should be aware of their rights so they may be empowered to live with dignity and self-determination; Whereas, we wish to honor and celebrate these citizens, to recognize their rich individuality, and to reaffirm their rights as community members and citizens; and, Now, therefore, i Sally Thomas, Chairperson of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Atbemade County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim October 6-12 as Residents' Rights Week Monday, October 7~ as Resident Council D,a~ y Saturday, October 12"' as Family Council Day in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage all citizens to join me in these important obServances. Signed this 11th day of September 2002. Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors September 10, 2002 Sally Thomas, Chairperson Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 889 Leigh Way Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Sally: Across the United States, residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities will be celebrating Residents' Rights Week 2002, October 6-12. Designated by the National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the week highlights the dignity and individuality of the 1.8 million residents who live in over 60,000 nursing homes, assisted living and board and care facilities with the theme Giving Voice to Quality: Affirming Residents' Rights in Long-Term Care. Throughout our country, residents, family members, ombudsmen and facility staff will commemorate the week by holding special events that emphasize that all residents are to be treated as individuals with dignity and respect. The Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) long term care ombudsman program is working with the facilities in Planning District 10 in the development of their Residents' Rights Week 2002 recognition events. A calendar of events will be advertised later. You are cordially invited to participate in or attend any local facility event. We respectfully request a proclamation acknowledging the designated week be submitted to our office by September 24. The proclamation will be included in a press release that will include an invitation to a press conference to be held September 30 at 10:00 a.m. at which Jennifer Pitts (Miss Virginia), Gordon Walker (JABA's CEO) and a volunteer long-term care ombudsman will be present to talk about the importance of volunteerism in our long-term care facilities and empowering residents in exercising their fights. We also invite you to present the proclamation at the press conference. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request and invitation. Please feel free to contact JABA's ombudsman, Angela Johnson, directly at 434-817-5241. Sincerely, Gordon Walker Chief Executive Officer Enclosure (sample proclamation) Angela Johnson Long-Term Care Ombudsman Proclamation Whereas, residents of long term care facilities are one of our greatest resources; and Whereas, the federal Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987 guarantees residents their rights in order to promote and maintain their dignity and autonomy; and Whereas, residents across to country will be celebrating Residents' Rights Week to give voice to the need for high quality care; and ['rItereas, Resident Councils provide a voice for individuals who reside in long term care settings; and Whereas, Family Councils enhance familyparticipation and quality of life; and Whereas, these residents shouM be aware of their rights so they may be empowered to live with dignity and self-determination; and Whereas, we wish to honor and celebrate these citizens· to recognize their rich individuality, and to reaffirm their rights as community members and citizens; Now, therefore, I Sally Thomas, Chairperson of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia, do hereby proclaim October 6-12 as Residents' Rights I4'eek, Monday, October 7th as Resident Council Day, and Saturday, October 12th as Family Council Day in Albemarle County, Virginia, and encourage all citizens to join me in these important observances. Signed this 30th day of October 2002 · Chairperson Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Public School Authority Bond Resolution SUBJECT/PROPOSALIREQUEST: Request board approval of a Resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $8,700,000 in VPSA Bonds. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: September 11, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes The FY 2002/03 Capital Improvement Budget was approved with the intent to issue approximately $8,700,000 in bonds th rough the Virginia Public School Authority for the following projects: ADA Structural Changes, Brownsville Elementary Addition, Jack Jouett Middle School Additions/Renovations, Monticello High School, Post-High Facility, Southern Urban Elementary, Walton Middle School Addition, and Maintenance Projects. DISCUSSION: Resolutions authorizing the application to VPSA were approved by the School Board on August 22, 2002, and by the Board of Supervisors on August 15, 2002. The attached resolution references Exhibit A, Form of the Bond and, Exhibit B, a description of the projects. Also attached is the projected debt payment schedule. The Proceeds Agreement and the Bond Sale Agreement are available for review in the Clerk's Office and will also be available for review at the meeting. In order to proceed with this process, a public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on September 11, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to proceed with this project and to meet the bond issuance guidelines. The other documents need to be approved as to form and will be completed during the actual bond sale process. 02.142 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS, SERIES 2002A, OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $8,700,000 TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to exceed $8,700,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duty noticed, on September 1 t, 2002, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code'); and WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution adopted August 22, 2002, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and consented to the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $8,700,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested") from the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to the amortization schedules requested by other loca}ities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA's bonds; and WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is greater than or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds set forth in section 1 below does not exceed the amount of the discount the purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $8,700,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes as described in Exhibit B. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of the VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price, determined by the VPSA to be fair and accepted by the Chairman of the Board and the County Executive, or either of them, that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds may be sold for a purchase price not lower than 97.5% of the Proceeds Requested if issuing the Bonds in the maximum principal amount authorized by Section 1 of this Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of October 1, 2002 (the "Bond Sale Agreement"), with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA. The Bond Sale Agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2002A"; shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January t 5 and July 15 beginning July 15, 2003 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the "Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution. 4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed five and sixty one-hundredths percent (5.60%) per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The County Executive is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution and provided further that the final maturity of the Bonds occurs no later than December 31, 2022. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Payment;. Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: (a) For as long as the vPsA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds. (c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as bond registrar and paying agent for the Bonds (the "Bond Registrar"). The County may, in its sole discretion, replace at any time the Bond Registrar with another qualified bank or trust company as successor Bond Registrar. 7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2012, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2012, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2012, and the definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2012, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2012, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2012 through July 14, 2013 July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2014 July 15, 2014 and thereafter 101% 100½ 100 Provided, however., that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. 8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman, either of whom may act, and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board, either of whom may act, are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman of the Board, the COunty Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Director of Finance to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment o£proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement, The Chairman of the Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate, any of whom may act, are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the Countv. 14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 11, 2002, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. Members present at the meeting were: David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, .Jr.; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; Dennis S. Rooker; and Sally H. Thomas. Members absent from the meeting were: (none). Members voting in favor of the foregoing resolution were: David P. Bowerman; Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.; Charles S. Martin; Walter F. Perkins; Dennis S. Rooker; and Sally H. Thomas. Members voting against the fOregoing resolution were: (none). Members abstaining from voting on the foregoing resolution were: (none). WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, this 12 day of September, 2002. [SEAL] EXHIBIT A (FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND) NO. TR-1 $ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE General Obligation School Bond Series 2002A The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of DOLLARS ($ ), in annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule ! attached hereto payable on July 15, 2003, and annually on July 15 thereafter to .and including July 15, 2022 (each a "Principal Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi- annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing on July 15, 2003 (each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum set forth on Schedule ! attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this Bond, SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, or any successor appointed by the County, as bond registrar and paying agent (the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public A-1 School Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of principal, premium,, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.2-2624, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly adopted A-2 by the Board of Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes. This Bond may be exchanged without cost, on twenty (20) days written notice from the Virginia Public School Authority, at the office of the Bond Registrar on one or more occasions for one or more temporary bonds or definitive bonds in marketable form and, in any case, in fully registered form, in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, and having an equal aggregate principal amount, having principal installments or maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid. This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment. The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before July 15, 2012, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2012, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2012, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2012, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2012, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed A-3 as percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates July 15, 2012 through July 14, 2013 July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2014 July 15, 2014 and thereafter Prices 101% 100½ 100 Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without the prior written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated ,2002. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (SE~) ATTEST: Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia A-4 Chairman, Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to exchange said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Date: Signature Guaranteed: (NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Bond Registrar which requirements will include Membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by Registered Owner (NOTICE: The signature above must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears on the front of this Bond in every particular, without alteration or change.) the Bond Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STABS, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A-5 DRAFT Principal Albemarle County Non-Subsidized Local School Bond Rate Interest Total Fiscal Total 7/15/2003 1/15/2004 7/15/2004 1 /15/2005 7/15/2005 1/15/2006 7/15/2006 1/15/2007 7/15/2007 1/15/2008 7/15/2008 1/15/2009 7/15/2009 1/15/2010 7/15/2010 1/15/2011 7/15/2011 1/15/2012 7/15/2012 1/15/2013 7/15/2013 1/15/2014 7/15/2014 1/15/2015 7/15/2015 1/15/2016 7/15/2016 1 / 15/2017 7/15/2017 1/15/2018 7/15/2018 1/15/2019 7/15/2019 1/15/2020 7/15/2020 1/15/2021 7/15/2021 1/15/2022 7/15/2022 1/15/2023 7/15/2023 $435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 2.600% 2.600% 3.100% 3.100% 3.100% 3.350% 3.600% 3.850% 4.100% 4.100% 4.100% 4.225% 4.300% 4.450% 4.550% 4.650% 4.750% 4.850% 4.950% 5.000% $237 710.58 166 876.88 166 876.88 161 221.88 161 221.88 154 479.38 154 479.38 147.736.88 147.736.88 140 994.38 140,994.38 133,708.13 133,708.13 125,878.13 125,878.13 117,504.38 117,504.38 108.586.88 108.586.88 99 669.38 99 669.38 90 751.88 90 751.88 81 562.50 81 562.50 72 210.00 72,210.00 62.531.25 62.531.25 52 635.00 52 635.00 42 521.25 42 521.25 32 190.00 32,190.00 21,641.25 21,641.25 10,875.00 10,875.00 0.00 $672,710.58 166,876.88 601,876.88 161,221.88 596,221.88 154,479.38 589,479.38 147,736.88 582,736.88 140,994.38 575,994.38 133,708.13 568,708.13 125,878.13 560,878.13 117 504.38 552 504.38 108 586.88 543 586.88 99 669.38 534 669.38 90.751.88 525751.88 81..562.50 516 562.50 72 210.00 507 210.00 62 531.25 497 531.25 52 635.00 487 635.00 42.521.25 477.521.25 32 190.00 467,190.00 21,641.25 456,641.25 10,875.00 445,875.00 0.00 $839,587.46 763,098.75 750,701.25 737,216.25 723,731.25 709,702.50 694,586.25 678,382.50 661,091.25 643,256.25 625,421.25 607,314.38 588,772.50 569,741.25 550,166.25 530,156.25 509,711.25 488,831.25 467,516.25 445,875.00 Debt Total Premium Grand Total $8,700,000.00 $8,700,000.00 $3,884,859.33 $12,584,859.33 Dated Date 11/7/2002 EXHIBIT B PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADA Structural Changes ADA compliance for all facilities to include stadium bleachers, lever hardware locks and other structural changes. The current projects will cost $50,000 and will be completed by August, 2003. Brownsville Addition A 15,600 SF addition to an existing elementary school. Construction is to begin Summer, 2002. Total project cost is $2,626,000. Jouett Addition/Renovation A 17,000 SF addition to an existing middle school and 8,000 SF of major renovations. Construction is to begin Summer, 2002. Total project cost is $3,878,000. Monticello High School An addition to accommodate 300 additional students is being designed and is expected to be completed by the 2004/05 school year with a total project cost of $7,391,000. Post-High Facility A 2,000 SF house with special accommodations for handicapped students, 18 - 21 years old, who are transitioning fi:om traditional school to independent living. Total project is $250,000 and will be completed by January, 2003. Southern Urban Elementary Site exploration and planned for 2003/04. project cost: $15,130,000. Walton Addition selection costs for a new 600-student school. Land Purchase is Construction is anticipated to begin in 2005/06. Total anticipated Renovation and addition to existing facilities to accommodate instructional program changes and upgrade systems. The expected construction start date is June, 2003 with a total project cost of $774,000. Maintenance Projects Funding for maintenance and replacements projects including a HVAC replacement and roof replacements. Total project cost is $3,113,000. B-1 26222.000027 RICHMOND 885397v2 PROCEEDS AGREEMENT Respecting the Custody, Investment, and Disbursement of Proceeds of Local School Bonds Purchased by the Virginia Public School Authority with the Proceeds of Its $[ School Financing Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 2002 B SABW Draft August 28, 2002 Dated November 7, 2002 Among Virginia Public School Authority Wachovia Bank, N.A. Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC and ! 1 Table of Contents Page Section 1. Recitals ........................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2. Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 3 Section 3. Disposition of VPSA Bond Proceeds ............................................................................. 9 Section 4. Establishment of Accotmts ............................................................................................. 9 Section 5. Disposition of Local School Bond Proceeds ................................................................ 10 Section 6. Investment of Principal Subaccount ............................................................................. 11 Section 7. Disbursements from Principal Subaccount .................................................................. 11 Section 8. Investment of Income Subaccount ............................................................................... 12 Section 9. Income Subaccount ...................................................................................................... 12 Section 10. Investment Losses ...................................................................................................... 14 Section 11. Rebate Computations .................................................................................................. 15 Section 12. Transfers to Income Subaccount ................................................................................ 16 Section 13. Disposition of Excess Proceeds .................................................................................. 16 Section 14. Rebate Payments and Penalty Payments .................................................................... 17 Section 15. Duties of VPSA .......................................................................................................... 18 Section 16. Duties of the Depository ............................................................................................. 19 Section 17. Duties of Local Units .................................................................................................. 19 Section 18. Responsibilities of the Investment Manager .............................................................. 20 Section 19. Costs ........................................................................................................................... 21 Section 20. Opinions of Counsel ................................................................................................... 21 Section 21. Amendment ................................................................................................................ 21 Section 22. Notices ........................................................................................................................ 22 Section 23. No Third Party Beneficiaries ...................................................................................... 23 -i- Section 24. Severability ................................................................................................................. 23 Section 25. No Personal Liability .................................................................................................. 24 Section 26. Applicable Law ....................................................... ................................................... 24 Section 27. Counterparts ............................................................................................................... 24 Section 28. Effective Date; Term .................................................................................................. 24 -ii- PROCEEDS AGREEMENT Respecting the Custody, Investment, and Disbursement of Proceeds of Local School Bonds Purchased by the Virginia Public School Authority with the Proceeds of Its $[ School Financing Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 2002 B This PROCEEDS AGREEMENT, dated November 7, 2002 (this "Agreement"), is among the Virginia Public School Authority, a public body corporate and instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("VPSA"), the [__.] counties and [__.] cities that are signatories to this Agreement (collectively, the "Local Units", and each a "Local Unit"), Wachovia Bank, N.A., a banking institution organized under the laws of the United States and having its principal office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and having an office in Richmond, Virginia, and Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and having an office in Richmond, Virginia. All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning given to them in Section 2 hereof. The parties hereto agree and covenant as follows: Section 1. Recitals. A. On or before October 1, 2002, VPSA and each of the Local Units entered into a Bond Sale Agreement, pursuant to which VPSA agreed to purchase, and the Local Unit agreed to sell its Local School Bonds. B. On October 16, 2002, VPSA's Bonds were awarded at competitive bidding to the Purchaser. The Purchaser is obligated by the terms of its bid to pay the purchase price for the VPSA's Bonds on the Closing Date. VPSA will apply certain of the proceeds of the sale of VPSA's Bonds, together with other available funds, to the purchase of the Local School Bonds on November 7, 2002, the Local School Bonds Closing Date. VPSA will also apply certain of the proceeds of the sale of VPSA's Bonds, together with other available funds, to pay accrued interest and costs of issuance of the VPSA Bonds. C. The Code imposes requirements on VPSA and the Local Units selling their Local School Bonds to VPSA that must be met if interest on VPSA's Bonds and interest on the Local School Bonds are to be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, including a requirement that in certain circumstances, certain investment income with respect to the Local School Bonds, which income is deemed for federal income tax purposes to be investment income of VPSA's Bonds, be subject to payment, or in lieu thereof certain payments be made, to the United States Treasury. D. VPSA has determined that in order to fulfill its representations respecting the maintenance of the exclusion of the interest on VPSA's Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes, VPSA must establish a mechanism to provide accountability for the custody, investment and disbursement of the proceeds of VPSA's Bonds and the proceeds of the Local School Bonds. E. It is the purpose of this Agreement to enable VPSA (i) to fulfill the representations mentioned in the preceding subsection; (ii) subject to the constraints of the COde affecting the investment of the proceeds of tax-exempt obligations, to achieve the optimum, practicable income by the professional management of the investment and reinvestment of the proceeds of the Local School Bonds; (iii) to provide for the custody, investment and disbursement of the proceeds of the Local School Bonds, and for the maintenance of appropriate records thereof; (iv) to meet the rebate requirement imposed by Section 148(0 of the Code, in part through the payment of either the Local Unit Rebate Requirement by each of the Local Units or the Penalty if the Penalty Election has been made on behalf of a Local Unit; and (v) to Provide -2- for the allocation and payment of the costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of this Agreement. F. The purposes set forth in the preceding subsection E shall be accomplished through SNAP. The proceeds of the Local School Bonds shall be invested in accordance with the Information Statement. Any statements of facts contained in these recitals pertaining to the sale of the VPSA's Bonds and the application of such proceeds, other than the purchase of the Local School Bonds, will not be deemed to be made by the Local Units except to the extent they have knowledge of such facts. Section 2. Definitions. In addition to the words and terms elsewhere defined in this Proceeds Agreement including the Exhibits attached hereto, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings: "Aggregate Local Units Rebate Requirement" shall be the amount calculated pursuant to the Letter Agreement. "Agreement" or "Proceeds Agreement" shall mean tl~e Proceeds Agreement, dated November 7, 2002, among the Authority, the Local Units, the Depository and the Investment Manager. "Authorized Representative" shall mean, as applied to VPSA, the Depository, the Investment Manager and the Local Units, the person or each of the persons thereby designated, from time to time, in accordance with and as listed on the page of this Agreement executed by such party. "Available Construction Proceeds" shall mean, as applied to each Local Unit, the sum of (i) the amount initially deposited to the Principal Account of such Local Unit pursuant to -3- Section 5 hereof, and (ii) the investment earnings thereon, reduced by the amount of issuance costs financed by such Local Unit's Local School Bonds. In the event that the Local Unit has made the Bifurcation Election on its signature page, "Available Construction Proceeds" shall mean the sum of the amount set forth on the signature page as the portion of the issue used for construction and the investment earnings thereon, reduced by the amount set forth on the signature page as allocable to issuance expenses. "Bifurcation Election", with respect to each issue of Local School Bonds, shalI mean the election made by the Local Unit to treat a portion of its Local School Bonds used for construction as a separate issue pursuant to Section 148(f)(4)(C)(v) of the Code. "Bond Sale Agreements" shall refer to the respective Bond Sale Agreements, dated as of October 1, 2002, between VPSA and each Local Issuer. "Capital Expenditure" shall mean any cost of a type that is properly chargeable to a capital account (or would be so chargeable with a proper election) under general federal income tax principles as determined at the time the expenditure is paid with respect to the property. "Capital Project" shall mean all Capital Expenditures, plus related working capital expenditures to which the de minimis exception provided by Section 1.148-6(d)(3)(ii)(A) of the Treasury Regulations to the proceeds-spent-last rule applies, that carry out the governmental purpose of the Local School Bond issue. "Closing Date" shall mean, with respect to VPSA Bonds, the date of dehvery by VPSA of such Bonds to the Purchaser. The Closing Date is scheduled to be November 7, 2002. "Code" shall mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. -4- "Computation Date" shall mean each of the Installment Computation Dates and the Final Computation Date. "Contract" shall mean the Contract respecting the Virginia State Non-Arbitrage Program, between the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Investment Manager, including the Depository Agreement appearing as Appendix A thereto. "Depository" shall mean Wachovia Bank, N.A., a banking institution organized under the laws of the United States of America and having its principal office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and an office in Richmond, Virginia and its future successors and assigns under the Depository Agreement. "Eighteen-Month Exception" shall mean the exception to the Rebate Requirement provided by Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-7(d). "Final Computation Date" shall mean the date the last bond that is part of the issue of VPSA's Bonds is discharged. "Gross Proceeds" shall have the meaning given to such term in the Letter Agreement. "Income Subaccount" shall mean the Income Subaccount established pursuant to Section 4 of this Proceeds Agreement for ~each Local Unit and (ii) both Income Subaccounts established pursuant to Section 4(b) of this Proceeds Agreement for the [ ] Local Units described therein. "Income Subaccount Set Aside" shall have the meaning given to such term by Section 9(b) of this Agreement. "Individual Portfolio" shall have the meaning given to such term in the Information Statement. -5- "Information Statement" shall mean the current Information Statement describing SNAP, as the same may be supplemented and amended. "Installment Computation Dates" shall mean November 8, 2007, and each fifth (5th) anniversary date thereafter. "Investment Manager" shall mean the investment manager of SNAP and its successors and assigns, on the Closing Date being Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC, a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and having an office in Richmond, Virginia. "Investment Report" shall have the meaning given to such term in Part A of the Letter Agreement. "Letter Agreement" shall mean the Letter Agreement, dated the date hereof, attached to this Agreement as Exhibit C. "Local School Bonds" shall mean general obligation school bonds of a Local Unit having the terms and provisions required by the Bond Sale Agreement. "Local School Bonds Closing Date" shall mean the Closing Date, except as otherwise provided on the page of this Agreement executed by a Local Unit; provided, however, the Local School Bonds Closing Date with respect to an issue of Local School Bonds shall not be deemed to have occurred until the related Local Unit shall have delivered the Local School Bonds to VPSA and otherwise complied with the terms of its Bond Sale Agreement. "Local Unit" or "Local Units" shall have the meaning accorded to such term by the first paragraph of this Agreement. -6- "Local Unit Rebate Computation", with respect to each issue of Local School Bonds, shall mean a Rebate Computation for each Local Unit made on each Computation Date pursuant to Section 11 of this Proceeds Agreement. "Local Unit's Rebate Requirement", with respect to each issue of Local School Bonds, shall mean the amount payable to the United States Treasury calculated pursuant to the Letter Agreement. "Penalty" shall mean the amount that must be paid to the United States Treasury pursuant to the Penalty Election. "Penalty Election", with respect to each issue of Local School Bonds, shall mean the election made by the Local Unit to pay a penalty in lieu of rebate pursuant to Section 148(f)(4)(C)(vii) of the Code. "Principal Subaccount" shall mean the Principal Subaccount established pursuant to Section 4(a) of this Proceeds Agreement for each Local Unit and (ii) both Principal Subaccounts established pursuant to Section 4(b) of this Proceeds Agreement for the three (3) Local Units described therein. "Proceeds Account" shall mean, with respect to each Local Unit, its account established under Section 4 of this Proceeds Agreement. "Purchaser" shall mean [ ], the bidder offering to pay the lowest true interest cost of VPSA's Bonds and to which VPSA awarded the VPSA's Bonds at a competitive sale. "Rebate Calculation Agent" shall have the meaning given to such term in the Letter Agreement. -7- "Rebate Computation" shall mean the computation, as of a Computation Date, of the Local Unit Rebate Requirement to such Computation Date. The amount so computed may be a positive or a negative number. "Rebate Exceptions" shall mean the Spending Exceptions and the Small-Issuer Exception, collectively. "Rebate Report" shall mean the Local Unit Rebate Computations. "Rebate Requirement" shall mean the rebate requirement imposed by Sections 148(0(2) and (3) of the Code. "Six-Month Exception" shall mean the exception to the Rebate Requirement provided by Section 148(0(4)03) of the Code. "Small-Issuer Exception" shall mean the exception to the Rebate Requirement provided by Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Code. "SNAP" shall mean the State Non-Arbitrage Program established pursuant to Article 7.1, Chapter 14, Title 2.1, Code of Virginia, as amended. "SNAP Documents" shall mean the Information Statement and the Contract. "Spending Exceptions" shall mean the Six-Month Exception, the Eighteen-Month Exception and the Two-Year Exception, collectively. "Two-Year Exception" shall mean the exception to the Rebate Requirement provided by Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Code. "VPSA" shall mean the Virginia Public School Authority, a public body corporate and instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Virginia. "VPSA's Bond Yield" shall mean the Yield on VPSA's Bonds as set forth in the Letter Agreement. As provided in Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-4(a), the yield on each -8- issue of Local School Bonds of a Local Unit the interest on which is excluded from gross income shall equal the VPSA's Bond Yield. "VPSA's Bonds" shall mean the $[ VPSA's School Financing Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 2002 B. "Withdrawal Date" shall mean the date as of which an interim Rebate Calculation is made pursuant to Section 9 of this Proceeds Agreement. "Yield" shall have the meaning accorded to such term by the Letter Agreement. Section 3. Disposition of VPSA Bond Proceeds. A. Prior to the Closing Date, each Local Unit will complete and submit, to the Investment Manager, the program registration form and the SNAP account registration form annexed to the Information Statement. B. On the Closing Date, VPSA will transfer to the Depository for deposit in SNAP, in immediately available funds, an amount equal to the aggregate purchase price of all of the Local School Bonds ($[ ]). C. Each Local Unit hereby agrees to adhere strictly to the prescribed and recommended procedures described in the Information Statement. Each Local Unit hereby further agrees that it will not deviate fi'om or request an exception to such procedures without first obtaining the prior written approval of VPSA. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Agreement and the Information Statement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. Section 4. Establishment of Accounts. (a) Except as provided in Section 4(b) below, the Investment Manager will establish on its books for each Local Unit one (1) account and two (2) subaccounts therein as follows: ] aggregate principal amount of -9- VPSA-(Name of Local Unit) Proceeds Account - Series 2002 B Issue Principal Subaccount Income Subaccount (b) The Investment Manager shall establish on its books for each of [ ], within the one (1) Proceeds Account for each such Local Unit, two (2) subaccounts therein, and two subaccounts within each such subaccotmt, as follows: VPSA- (Name of Local Unit) Proceeds Account -Series 2002 B Issue Non Subsidy Subaccount Principal Subaccount Income Subaccount Subsidy Subaccount Principal Subaccount Income Subaccount The amounts in the Principal Subaccounts and Income Subaccounts of each of these Local Units shall be combined for purposes of this Agreement. Requisitions from [ ] shall specify the Subaccount from which moneys are being requisitioned. If a Local Unit has elected to treat a portion of its Local School Bonds issue used for construction as a separate issue as set forth on its signature page, the Investment Manager shall maintain such records as necessary to determine the portion of the Principal Subaccount and Income Subaccount of such Local Unit allocable to the construction issue and the non- construction issue. Section 5. Disposition of Local School Bond Proceeds. A. The Investment Manager shall allocate the proceeds of the Local School Bonds on the Local School Bonds Closing Date(s) to the Local Unit(s), dollar for dollar, in accordance with the respective purchase prices of their Local School Bonds set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement. There is no accrued interest on the Local School Bonds. Except as -10- provided in Section 5(B) - ([ ]) below, the proceeds of VPSA's Bonds allocated to each Local Unit shall be credited to the Principal Subaccount of the Local Unit in the amounts set forth in Exhibit A with respect to the Subsidy Local School Bonds and/or the Non-Subsidy Local School Bonds, as the case may be. B. With respect to [ ]. Section 6. Investment of Principal Subaccount. The Investment Manager shall invest and reinvest moneys to the credit of the Principal Subaccount of each Local Unit for the benefit of such Local Unit in accordance with the provisions of the Information Statement and Section 18 of this Agreement. The Investment Manager shall credit to the Local Unit's Income Subaccount all income and profits fi.om the investment and reinvestment of moneys to the credit of its respective Principal Subaccount. Section 7. Disbursements from Principal Subaccount. Beginning on its Local School Bonds Closing Date, each Local Unit may at any time withdraw all or any portion of the proceeds of its Local School Bonds credited to its. Principal Subaccount (including amounts transferred to the credit of the Principal Subaccount fi.om the Income Subacconnt pursuant to Section 9), in accordance with the Information Statement and, in the case of a reimbursement to the Local Unit, by filing with the Investment Manager a requisition or requisitions therefor in the form of Exhibit B to this Agreement signed by an Authorized Representative of the Local Unit. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Information Statement, the Investment Manager agrees that, in the case of a reimbursement to the Local Unit, it shall not disburse any money from the Principal Subaccount unless and until it has received such requisition fi:om the Local Unit. -11- Section 8. Investment of Income Subaccount. The Investment Manager shall invest and reinvest moneys to the credit of the Income Subaccount of each Local Unit for the benefit of such Local Unit in accordance with thc provisions of the Information Statement and Section 18 of this Agreement. The Investment Manager shall credit to the Local Unit's Income Subaccount all income and profits from thc investment and reinvestment of moneys to the credit thereof. Section 9. Income Subaccount. A. The Investment Manager will notify a Local Unit and VPSA when the balance to thc credit of the Principal Subaccount of such Local Unit shall have been reduced to zero ($0). Such Local Unit may then withdraw from its Income Subaccount an amount not in excess of the amount then to the credit of its Income Subaccount if the Local Unit qualifies for any one of the Rebate Exceptions or if such withdrawal is necessary to qualify for one of the Spending Exceptions. 1. In order to qualify for the Small-Issuer Exception, the Local Unit must deliver to VPSA and the Investment Manager no later than the end of calendar year 2002 (a) a letter from, or opinion of, nationally recognized bond counsel that the Local School Bonds of such Local Unit purchased by VPSA with the proceeds of the VPSA's Bonds will be treated as meeting the requirements of Code Sections 148(0(2) and (3), pursuant to Code Section 148(f)(4)(D); and (b) the Local Unit's covenant that it shall provide for the payment or reimburse VPSA for its payment of the Local Unit' s Rebate Requirement in the event that the Local School Bonds of such Local Unit fail to meet all of the requirements of the Small Issuer Exception. 2. In order to determine if a Local Unit qualifies for either the Six-Month Exception or the Eighteen-Month Exception, the Investment Manager shall advise each -12- Local Unit and VPSA of the amount that has been disbursed from the Principal Subaccount and the Income Subaccount of such Local Unit (a) six (6) months from the Local School Bonds Closing Date, (b) twelve (12) months from the Local School Bonds Closing Date, and (c) eighteen (18) months from the Local School Bonds Closing Date. To facilitate such determination, each Local Unit shall set forth on the signature page for such Local Unit the amount of investment proceeds that such Local Unit reasonably expects as of the Local School Bonds Closing Date to earn. 3. In order to determine if a Local Unit qualifies for the Two-Year Exception, the Investment Manager shall advise each Local Unit and VPSA, of the amount of Available Construction Proceeds that has been disbursed from the Principal Subaccount and the Income Subaccount of such Local Unit (a) six (6) months from the Local School Bonds Closing Date, (b) twelve (12) months from the Local School Bonds Closing Date, (c) eighteen (18) months from the Local School Bonds Closing Date, and (d) twenty-four (24) months from the Local School Bonds Closing Date. To facilitate such determination, each Local Unit shall set forth on the signature page for such Local Unit the amount of investment proceeds that such Local Unit reasonably expects as of the Local School Bonds Closing Date to earn and the elections that it requests VPSA to make on its behalf. Furthermore, such Local Unit shall set forth in a certificate delivered to VPSA on the Local School Bonds Closing Date such facts and circumstances as necessary to show that it reasonably expects to qualify for the Two-Year Exception. 4. The portion of the proceeds of the VPSA Bonds applied to purchase the [ ] Bonds and the refunding portions of the -13- [ ] Bonds do not qualify for the Eighteen-Month Exception or Two-Year Exception. B. Except to the extent that a Penalty Election has been made on behalf of a Local Unit, if the Local Unit fails to qualify for one of the Spending Exceptions, or is otherwise subject to the Rebate Requirement, then prior to a withdrawal from its Income Subaccount and upon receipt of such notification, the Local Unit shall promptly request, pursuant to the terms of the Information Statement, an interim Rebate Computation with respect to such Local Unit or an estimate of such Local Unit's Rebate Requirement for purposes of determining what amount, if any, to the credit of the Income Subaccount may be subject to rebate. Any estimate of the Local Unit's Rebate Requirement made by the Investment Manager shall also be provided to VPSA in writing. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Information Statement, no disbursement will be made from the Income Subaccount until the aforementioned calculation shall have been made. The amount to the credit of the Income Subaccount that may be subject to rebate is the Income Subaccount Set Aside. On the Withdrawal Date, the Investment Manager shall (i) reserve, in the Income Subaccount, the amount of the "Income Subaccount Set Aside" until the next Rebate Computation required by Section 11 shall have been made and (ii) credit the remaining balance to the credit of the Income Subaccount to the credit of the Local Unit's Principal Subaccounr. Section 10. Investment Losses. The Investment Manager shall charge any loss realized from the investment or reinvestment of moneys to the credit of the Income Subaccount and the Principal Subaccount of a Local Unit as follows: 1. losses on moneys to the credit of the Principal Subaccount shall be charged thereto; and -14- 2. losses on moneys to the credit of the Income Subaccount shall be charged first to the Principal Subaccount and then to the Income Subaccount. Section 11. Rebate Computations. On or before each Computation Date, VPSA will prepare, or cause to be prepared, in accordance with the provisions of the Letter Agreement the Local Unit Rebate Computations. The Local Unit Rebate Computation for each Local Unit shall be made on the basis of the Investment Reports maintained by the Investment Manager for each Proceeds Account. With respect to the amounts on deposit in the [ ] Transferred Proceeds Account, such amounts will be taken into account for purposes of the Local Unit Rebate Computation for [ ], respectively as applicable, only if the [ 1, respectively as applicable, do not qualify for one of the Spending Exceptions or if the [. .], respectively as applicable, fail to meet all of the requirements of the Small Issuer Exception. As set forth in the Letter Agreement, the Local Unit Rebate Requirement shall be calculated separately for each Local Unit. If it is determined, however, that the Local Unit Rebate Requirement is required to be calculated in the aggregate, the Local Unit Rebate Requirement for each Local Unit shall be equal to a percentage of the Aggregate Local Units Rebate Requirement determined by multiplying the Aggregate Local Units Rebate Requirement by a fi:action, the numerator of which is the positive Local Unit Rebate Requirement calcUlated separately and the denominator of which is the sum of all of the positive Local Unit Rebate Requirements calculated separately. If any provision of this Agreement shall become inconsistent with any regulation or regulations promulgated under Section 148(0 of the Code subsequent to the date hereof, VPSA hereby agrees and covenants to prepare, or cause to be prepared, as soon as practicable, a Local Unit Rebate Computation for each Local Unit, in compliance with such regulation or regulations, and VPSA, the Investment Manager and each of the Local Units hereby further agree and covenant immediately to make any and all transfers and payments required by Sections 12 and 14 of this Agreement from any moneys on deposit in the Income Subaccount and any other monevs of the Local Unit legally available for such purpose. Section 12. Transfers to In come Subaeeount. Upon receipt by a Local Unit of the Rebate Report from VPSA, if the amount on deposit in the Local Unit's Income Subaccount (including the Income Subaccount Set Aside) is less than the Local Unit Rebate Requirement of such Local Unit, the Investment Manager shall promptly charge the Principal Subaccount of such Local Unit an amount equal to the deficiency and credit its Income Subaccount such amount. To the extent that the amount on deposit in the Principal Subaccount is insufficient to remedy the deficiency, the Investment Manager shall advise VPSA and such Local Unit of the amount of the remaining deficiency, and, to the extent permitted by law, the Local Unit agrees to transfer promptly to the Depository, from any funds that are or may be made legally available for such purpose, the amount equal the remaining deficiency. To the extent that the amount on deposit in the Income Subaccount exceeds the Local Unit Rebate Requirement for the Local Unit, such excess shall be transferred to the Principal Subaccount of the Local Unit. Section 13. Disposition of Excess Proceeds. A. When a Local Unit shall certify to VPSA and the Investment Manager that there are balances to the credit of the Local Unit's Principal Subaccount or Income Subaccount that will not be used for Capital Projects prior to November 7, 2005, such amount shall be retained in the Proceeds Account and, to the extent such amount is not required to be deposited -16- to the Income Subaccount pursuant to Section 12, VPSA will, except as provided in the last sentence of this Section 13A, direct the Depository to apply such amount to redeem such Local Unit's Local School Bonds on the earliest possible date that such Bonds may be called without a penalty or premium. Notwithstanding the foregoing, when a Local Unit shall certify to VPSA and the Investment Manager that it has made an election under Section 148(f)(4)(C)(viii) or (ix) of the Code to terminate the Penalty Election, and that, pursuant to Code Section 148(f)(4)(C)(viii)(III) of such termination election, such Local Unit indicates the amount of Available Construction Proceeds to be applied to the redempti( the date of such redemption, VPSA will direct the Investmen apply such amount toward the redemption of such Local Unit'~ indicated. B. In the event that there are any balances ret Principal Subaccount or Income Subaccount of any Local U~ amounts will be invested by the Investment Manager in an Indi excess of the VPSA's Bond Yield or in tax-exempt obli [ ] Transferred Proceeds Account, in the eve~ remaining on deposit in such account on [ ], such Investment Manager in an Individual Portfolio at a Yield not Yield or in tax exempt investments. Section 14. Rebate Payments and Penalty Payments. A. The Local Unit Rebate Requirement of each United States Treasury at the direction of VPSA on behalf of aa Unit and VPSA in accordance with the Letter Agreement. .n of its Local School Bonds and Manager and the Depository to Local School Bonds on the date .aaining on deposit in either the fit on November 7, 2005, such ?idual Portfolio at a Yield not in gations. With respect to the ~t that there are any balances [mounts will be invested by the in excess of the VPSA's Bond Local Unit shall be paid to the for the accounts of the Local -17- B. The payment of the Local Unit Rebate Requirement of each Local Unit shall be in partial satisfaction with respect to the VPSA's Bonds, and total satisfaction with respect to the proceeds of the LoCal School Bonds on deposit in the Proceeds Account, of the requirements of Section 148(f') of the Code except to the extent that such issue of Local School Bonds may be treated as a composite issue under Treasury Regulation obligations. §1.150-1(c) with another issue of C. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if VPSA has made the Penalty Election on behalf of a Local Unit and if such Local Unit fails to qualify for one of the Spending Exceptions, then, prior to any further disbursements from the Principal Subaccount or Income Subaccount, the Local Unit shall promptly request, pursuant to the terms of the Information Statement, a computation of the amount of the Penalty that must be paid to the United States Treasury pursuant to the Penalty Election. If the amount on deposit in the Local Unit's Income Subaccount and Principal Subaccount is less than the amount of the Penalty due by such Local Unit, the Investment Manager shall advise VPSA and such Local Unit of the amount of the deficiency, and to the extent permitted by law, the Local Unit agrees to transfer promptly to the Depository, from any funds that are or may be made legally available for such purpose, the amount of the deficiency. The Penalty of each Local Unit shall be paid to the United States Treasury at the direction of VPSA on behalf of and for the accounts of the Local Units no later than ninety (90) days after the end of the spending period to which the Penalty relates. Section 15. Duties of VPSA. VPSA shall carry out its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement and may retain agents, independent contractors and others that it deems qualified to carry out any or all of such duties and responsibilities. -18- VPSA shall carry out, or cause to be carried out, all of its responsibilities under the Letter Agreement. VPSA shall retain a copy of all Rebate Computations for at least six (6) years after the retirement of the last of VPSA's Bonds. VPSA agrees that, except as provided in this Agreement, any rebate liability that VPSA may have on account of the investment and reinvestment of the Gross Proceeds of VPSA's bonds, including, by way of example and not of limitation, any rebate liability as a result of the investment of money credited to funds and accounts created under its bond resolutions or as a result of the advance refunding of its bonds, shall be the sole responsibility of VPSA and not any Local Unit. Section 16. Duties of th e Depository. The Depository shall carry out its duties and responsibilities under the SNAP Documents and this Agreement. Section 17. Duties of Local Units. A. The Local Units will cooperate with VPSA, the Investment Manager and the Depository in order to ensure that the purposes of this Agreement are fulfilled. To that end, each Local Unit covenants and agrees that it will take any and all action and refrain from taking any and all action, as recommended by its bond counsel, to maintain the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on its Local School Bonds to the same extent such interest was so excludable on the Closing Date. B. If a Local Unit is required to restrict the Yield on its investments, in order to comply with such covenant or to maintain the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on VPSA's Bonds, it shall timely notify the Investment Manager to restrict such Yield to the VPSA's Bond Yield. Each Local Unit agrees not to charge its general -19- fund or otherwise set aside or earmark funds with which to pay debt service on its Local School Bonds (other than as a budget item) prior to the date of payment thereof to VPSA. C. Each Local Unit agrees to provide for the payment of its Local Unit Rebate Requirement and/or Penalty and acknowledges that the payment of its Local Unit Rebate Requirement and/or Penalty is necessary to maintain the exclusion fi:om gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on its Local School Bonds as well as the VPSA's Bonds. Each Local Unit agrees to complete and to provide to VPSA such forms as VPSA may request for filing in connection with the payment of the Local Unit Rebate Requirement and/or Penalty. D. Each Local Unit hereby covenants and represents that neither the Local Unit nor any related party, as defined in Section 1.150-1 (b) of the Treasury Regulations, to such Local Unit, pursuant to any arrangement, formal or informal, will purchase the VPSA's Bonds in an amount related to the amount of Local School Bonds to be acquired from such Local Unit by VPSA. Section 18. Responsibilities of th e Investment Manager. The Investment Manager shall be the agent of, and serve at the expense of, the Local Units, to manage and direct .the temporary investment and reinvestment of all moneys to the credit of the Proceeds Accounts pending their disbursement to the Local Units and to make such computations as required by this Agreement. In general, the duties of the Investment Manager shall include those described in the SNAP Documents. In particular, the Investment Manager will direct the investment and reinvestment of moneys to the credit of the Subaccounts of each Local Unit in accordance with the Information Statement, the Contract and this Agreement. -20- Section 19. Costs. Costs of SNAP are payable as provided in the Information Statement. The difference in the interest rates between VPSA's Bonds and the Local School Bonds shall be collected and retained by VPSA as partial payment of the administrative costs incurred by VPSA in connection with issuing, carrying, and repaying VPSA's Bonds, and the underwriting discount, if any, and the cost of purchasing, carrying, and selling or redeeming the Local School Bonds. VPSA will not charge any other fee to the Local Units for its services or seek reimbursement for its fees and expenses, including counsel fees, incurred in connection with the discharge of its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement. Section 20. Opinions of Counsel. On the Closing Date, VPSA and each Local Unit shall furnish an opinion of counsel addressed, in the case of counsel to VPSA, to all the Local Units, and in the case of counsel to the Local Units, to VPSA, to the effect that the obligations of its client under this Agreement are valid, binding and enforceable against such client in accordance with its terms. Section 21. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only with the consent of all the affected parties; provided, however, that this Agreement shall be amended whenever, in the judgment of VPSA, based on an opinion of its counsel, such amendment is required in order to insure that interest on VPSA's Bonds shall remain excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes to the same extent it was, in the opinion of such counsel, so excludable on the Closing Date. VPSA shall offer to amend this Agreement whenever it shall in good faith determine, based on an opinion of its counsel, that any one or more of the restrictions or requirements imposed by this Agreement upon the Local Units, or any of them, may be removed or modified without adversely -21- affecting the exclusion of interest on VPSA's Bonds from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Section 22. Notices. Whenever notice is to be given pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, such notice shall be deemed to have been satisfactorily given on the same day if hand delivered or telecopied during regular business hours or three (3) days after the date of postmark if mailed, first class mail, postage prepaid, as follows: If to VPSA, to byh~d by mail by telecopier in any case If to the Depository, to By hand By mail By telecopier In any case If to the Investment Manager, to By hand Virginia Public School Authority c/o State Treasurer 3rd Floor, James Monroe Building 101 North 14th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Post Office Box 1879 Richmond, Virginia 23218-1879 (804) 225-3187 Attention: Public Finance Manager Wachovia Bank, N.A. 1021 East Cary Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Post Office Box 27602 Richmond, Virginia 23261 (804) 697-7370 Attention: Richard H. Grattan Senior Vice President Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC 951 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 -22- By mail By telecopier In any case 951 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 344-6520 Attention: A1 Samper Senior Vice President If to a Local Unit, to the address or telecopier number indicated on the page of this Agreement executed by such Local Unit. Any such address or number may be changed by written notice given to all the other parties to this Agreement and the Investment Manager, except that a Local Unit need give such notice only to VPSA, the Depository and the Investment Manager. Section 23. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing in this Agreement expressed or implied is intended or shall be construed to confer upon any person, firm or corporation other than the parties hereto any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under or by reason of this Agreement or any provision hereof, this Agreement and all its provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the parties hereto. Section 24. Severability. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein. In case any covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be in violation of law, then such covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement shall be deemed to be the covenant, stipulation} obligation or agreement of the affected party to the full extent permitted by law. -23- Section 25. No Personal Liability. All covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of VPSA contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to be covenants, stipulations, obligations and agreements of VPSA to the full extent authorized by the laws and permitted by the Constitution of Virginia. No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement contained herein shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement of any present or future member, employee or agent of VPSA or any Local Unit in his individual capacity. No commissioner, officer, employee or agent of VPSA or any Local Unit shall incur any personal liability in acting or proceeding or in not acting or not proceeding, in good faith, reasonably and in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and thc applicable laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Section 26. Applicable Law. This Agreement is executed with the intent that the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall govern its construction. Section 27. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts. Section 28. Effective Date; Term. This Agreement shall take effect on the Closing Date and shall expire on the date on which VPSA shall make the finalrebatc payment required by Part D of the Letter Agreement. -24- Virginia Public School Authority By: NalTle: Title: Richard A. Davis Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer Wachovia Bank, N.A. By: Name: Richard H. Grattan Title: Senior Vice President Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC By: Name: A1Samper Title: Senior Vice President -25- NAME OF ISSUER: Page 1 of 2 A. Address for notices, by hand, by mail and by telecopier, if any, as referred to in Section 22 above: Authorized Representative(s): Name Title Specimen Signature C. Local School Bonds Closing Date (if not November 7, 2002, enter Date of Issue of Local School Bonds): D. Is the Small Issuer Exception applicable to this Issuer? (If yes, an opinion of Bond Counsel and Issuer's covenant is required as per Section 9 herein). Yes No E. Eighteen Month Exception Estimated Investment Earnings for purposes of the Eighteen-Month Exception: $ If any proceeds are used to refund prior debt, please indicate: (a) proceeds used to refund prior debt: $ (b) issuance expense allocable to the refunding portion of the issue: $ -26- NAME OF ISSUER: Page 2 of 2 F. Elections with respect to Two-Year Exception: 1. Election to use actual facts in lieu o£reasonable expectations for purposes of the Two-Year Exception: Yes No 2. Estimated Investment Earnings: $ 3. If any proceeds are used to refund prior debt, please indicate: (a) proceeds used to refund prior debt: $ (b) issuance expenses allocable to the refunding portion of the issue: $ 4. Bifurcation Election to treat the portion of the issue used for construction as a separate issue: Yes No If yes, state the portion of the issue used for construction and non-construction, respectively; (the sum of the following amounts must equal thc issue price of $ reduced by any portion used for refunding purposes): (a) portion of the issue used for construction: $ (b) issuance expenses allocable to the construction portion of the issue: $ (c) portion of the issue used for non-construction: $ (d) issuance expenses allocable to the non-construction portion of thc issue: $ 5. Penalty Election to pay One and One-Half Percent Penalty in lieu o£rebate: Yes No By: Name: Title: City/County -27- Exhibit A Page 1 of 2 LOCAL SCHOOL BONDS- NON-SUBSIDY Local Unit Principal Amount of Bonds Purchase Price TOTAL: $[ $[ A-1 Exhibit A Page 2 of 2 Local Unit LOCAL SCHOOL BONDS- SUBSIDY Principal Amount of Bonds Purchase Price Total: $[ ] $[ A-2 Exhibit B [No requisition is required in conjunction with a check payable to a vendor in respect of an invoice due and payable.] FORM OF REQUISITION FOR REIMBURSEMENT BY PRE-AUTHORIZED WIRE [To be used for REIMBURSEMENT to a Local Unit from Local School Bond proceeds for an invoice or obligation that has been paid and is eligible for payment from Local School Bond proceeds.] Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC 901 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor Richmond, Virginia 23219 VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY [Name of Local Unit] BOND PROCEEDS ACCOUNT - SERIES 2002 B ISSUE Requisition from the Principal Subaccount Requisition No. ("item number") This requisition for payment from the Principal Subaccount of the Proceeds Account is submitted in accordance with the provisions of the Proceeds Agreement dated November 7, 2002, among the Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA"), the undersigned (the "Local Unit") and the other units of local government signatory thereto, Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC, as Investment Manager and Wachovia Bank, N.A., as Depository. You are hereby notified that you are authorized and directed by the Local Unit to pay the following obligation from the Principal Subaccount: 1. The item number of such payment: 2. The amount[s] to be paid: $ 3. Purpose by general classification for which such obligation was incurred: B-1 4. The date(s) the expenditure(s) was/were made: To reimburse the Local Unit for costs of the through ,20_ as follows: School paid by the Local Unit Dated 5. A copy of each supporting [invoice, work order, statement] for which reimbursement is to be made is attached hereto. 6. The obligation[s] in the stated amount[s] have been paid, and each item thereof is a proper charge against the proceeds of the Local Unit's Proceeds Account and has not been the subject of a previous withdrawal fi:om the Proceeds Account. 7. All of which is hereby certified. [Name of Local Unit] By: Authorized Local Unit Representative B-2 Exhibit C Virginia Public School Authority 101 North 14th Street Richmon d, Virginia 23219 LETTER AGREEMENT November 7, 2002 Re: Custody, Investment, and Disbursement of Proceeds of Local School Bonds Purchased by the Virginia Public School Authority with the Proceeds of Its $[ 1 School Financing Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 2002 B This LETTER AGREEMENT, dated the date shown above (this "Letter Agreement"), is between the Authority and the Investment Manager. All capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning given to them in Part E of this Letter Agreement or in Section 2 of the Proceeds Agreement to which this Letter Agreement is attached as Exhibit C. With respect to the VPSA's Bonds, the Code requires that an mount equal to the VPSA's Rebate Requirement be paid to the United States Treasury. With respect to each issue of Local School Bonds, the Code requires that an amount equal to the Local Unit's Rebate Requirement be paid to the United States Treasury. Accordingly, VPSA hereby directs the Investment Manager, as provided below, to assist VPSA and each Local Unit to comply with the VPSA's Rebate Requirement and the respective Local Unit's Rebate Requirement. To enable VPSA and the Local Units to fulfill their respective obligations under the Proceeds Agreement and to make such payments, and to enable the Investment Manager to fulfill its obligations under this Letter Agreement, the Investment Manager will prepare, on or before December 1, 2003 and each December 1 thereafter, the Investment Reports for VPSA as of the preceding November 7 and each Local Unit as of the preceding November 7. On the basis of such Investment Reports, VPSA shall cause the Rebate Calculation Agent to prepare the Local Unit Rebate Computation setting forth the Local Unit Rebate Requirement as of each Computation Date for each Local Unit with respect to its issue of Local School Bonds as described in paragraph 3 of Part B hereto. In addition, the Investment Manager will, based on the Rebate Report, transfer, within thirty (30) days after the Computation Date of each Local Unit, from its Principal Subaccount, if necessary, to its Income Subaccount, the amount required so that the amount to the credit of the Income Subaccount of each Local Unit shall equal its Local Unit Rebate Requirement. A. Investment Report With respect to all Nonpurpose Investments acquired during the term of this Letter Agreement with Gross Proceeds of each issue of Local School Bonds, the Investment Manager shall maintain separate Investment Reports for each issue of Local School Bonds. C-1 The Investment Report for each Local Unit shall reflect the investments made with respect to its Proceeds Account. B. Rebate Computation on Local School Bonds VPSA shall compute each Local Unit's Rebate Requirement with respect to its issue of Local School Bonds in accordance with the procedure described below: 1. As of each Computation Date, VPSA shall cause the Rebate Calculation Agent to determine the Future Value of all nonpurpose payments made with respect to the Nonpurpose Investments purchased with or allocated to the Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds, as well as any rebate payments made, to such Computation Date in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Regulations. Unless VPSA shall otherwise direct, transaction costs incurred in acquiring, carrying, selling or redeeming such obligations, shall be accounted for as provided in the Information Statement. 2. As of each Computation Date, VPSA shall cause the Rebate Calculation Agent to determine the Future Value of all nonpurpose receipts received with respect to the Nonpurpose Investments purchased with or allocated to the Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds, as well as any rebate payments recovered, to such Computation Date in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Regulations. 3. As of each Computation Date, VPSA shall subtract the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 1 from the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 2. Such amount shall be the "Local Unit Rebate Requirement" as of the Computation Date. 4. Each of the Local Units has covenanted in Section 17 of the Proceeds Agreement not to charge its general fund or otherwise set aside or earmark funds with which to pay debt service on its Local School Bonds (other than as a budget item) prior to the date of payment thereof to VPSA. 5. Except as provided in Section 9(A)(4) of the Proceeds Agreement, the Local Unit Rebate Requirement may be treated as being met and no rebate computation shall be required with respect to the proceeds of the VPSA's Bonds applied to purchase such Local Unit's Local School Bonds if the VPSA receives the opinions and covenants or certification described in Section 9A of the Proceeds Agreement that a Local Unit meets the requirements of the (a) Six- Month Exception, (b) Eighteen-Month Exception, (c) Small Issuer Exception, or (d) Two-Year Exception, subject to the provisions described below. (a) Six-Month Exception. Notwithstanding the fact that all of the Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds are spent within six (6) months of the date of issue and no other Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds are anticipated for the remainder of the term of the issue, if Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds become available after the end of the initial six-month period, the Local Unit Rebate Requirement shall be computed with respect to such Gross Proceeds in accordance with the procedure described above. (b) Eighteen-Month Exception. Notwithstanding the fact that all of the Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds are spent within eighteen (18) months of the date of C-2 issue and no other Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds are anticipated for the remainder of the term of the issue, if Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds become available after the end of the initial eighteen-month period, the Local Unit Rebate Requirement shall be computed with respect to such Gross Proceeds in accordance with the procedure described above. (c) Small Issuer Exception. If a Local Unit delivers to VPSA no later than the end of calendar year 2002 (i) the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that the Local School Bonds of such Local Unit purchased by VPSA with the proceeds of the VPSA's Bonds will be treated as meeting the requirements of Code Sections 148 (0(2) and (3) pursuant to Code Section 148 (f)(4)(D) and (ii) the Local Unit's covenant that it shall provide for the payment of or reimburse VPSA for its payment of the Local Unit Rebate Requirement in the event that the Local School Bonds of such Local Unit fail to meet all the requirements of the Small Issuer Exception, then no rebate computation shall be made with respect to the proceeds of VPSA's Bonds applied to purchase such Local School Bonds. Although the Local School Bonds of a Local Unit may qualify for the Small Issuer Exception, custody, investment and disbursement of the proceeds of the VPSA's Bonds applied to the purchase of the Local Unit's Local School Bonds shall continue under the Proceeds Agreement, and the Investment Manager shall continue to provide an Investment Report for such Local Unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the [ ] Bonds and the refunding portions of the [ ] Bonds do not qualify for the Eighteen Month Exception or the Two Year Exception. Furthermore, with respect to the amounts on deposit in the [ ] Transferred Proceeds Account, such amounts will be taken into account for purposes of computing the Local Unit Rebate Requirement for [ ], respectively as applicable, but only if the [ ], respectively as applicable, do not qualify for one of the Spending Exceptions or if the [_.], respectively as applicable, fail to meet all of the requirements of the Small Issuer Exception. 6. In addition to the foregoing, no rebate computation shall be required with respect to the proceeds of the VPSA's Bonds applied to purchase a Local Unit's Local School Bonds ifa Penalty Election has been made on behalf of the Local Unit with respect to such Local School Bonds. C. Aggregate Rebate Computation on Local School Bondn In the event that the Treasury Regulations require that the Local Units' Rebate Requirements be calculated in the aggregate, VPSA shall compute the Aggregate Local Units' Rebate Requirement in accordance with the procedure set forth below. 1. As of each Computation Date, VPSA shall cause the Rebate Calculation Agent to determine the Future Value of all nonpurpose payments made with respect to the Nonpurpose Investments purchased with or allocated to the Gross Proceeds of all of the Local School Bonds in the aggregate (except those qualifying for one of the Rebate Exceptions or those that have C-3 made the Penalty Election), as well as any rebate payments made, to such Computation Date in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Regulations. 2. As of each Computation Date, VPSA shall cause the Rebate Calculation Agent to determine the Future Value of all nonpurpose receipts received with respect to the Nonpurpose Investments purchased with or allocated to the Gross Proceeds of all of the Local School Bonds in the aggregate (except those qualifying for one of the Rebate Exceptions or those that have made the Penalty Election), as well as any rebate receipts recovered, to such Computation Date in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury Regulations. 3. As of each Computation Date, VPSA shall subtract the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 1 from the amount computed pursuant to paragraph 2. Such amount shall be the "Aggregate Local Units' Rebate Requirement" as of the Computation Date. D. Rebate Payment 1. Upon the calculation of the Local Unit Rebate Requirement for each Local Unit, VPSA shall notify the Investment Manager thereof. The Investment Manager shall promptly charge the Principal Subaccount of a Local Unit to the extent the amount on deposit to the credit of its Income Subaccount is less than its Local Unit Rebate Requirement and credit its Income Subaccount with an amount such that the balance to the credit of the Income Subaccount is equal to such Local Unit Rebate Requirement (taking into account prior amounts credited to the Income Subaccount including investment income thereon). To the extent that the amoUnt on deposit in the Principal Subaccount is insufficient to provide for a deposit to the Income Subaccount such that the balance in the Income Subaccount is equal to the Local Unit Rebate Requirement for the Local Unit, the Investment Manager shall advise VPSA and such Local Unit of the amount of the deficiency so that the Local Unit may promptly transfer to the Depository the amount required pursuant to Section 12 of the Proceeds Agreement. 2. In addition to the computation of the Local Units' Rebate Requirement, VPSA shall calculate its Rebate Requirement with respect to Nonpurpose Investments that were acquired with the Gross Proceeds of the VPSA's Bonds in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Tax Certificate executed by VPSA in connection with the issuance of the VPSA's Bonds. 3. The Local Unit Rebate Requirement for each Local Unit, if a positive number, shall be paid at the direction of VPSA to the United States in installments. Each payment shall be made not later than sixty (60) days after each Computation Date. Each payment must be in an amount not less than the total of ninety percent (90%) of the Local Unit Rebate Requirement for each Local Unit as of each Installment Computation Date. All of the Local Unit Rebate Requirement must be paid to the United States within sixty (60) days after the Final Computation Date. Payment shall be made to the Internal Revenue Service Center, Ogden, Utah 84201 and be accompanied by Form 8038-T. VPSA shall make such payment as required. Investment Reports and records of the determinations made hereunder shall be retained by the Investment Manager and by VPSA, respectively, until six (6) years after the retirement of the last of VPSA's Bonds. E. Definitions C-4 In addition to the words and terms defined in the Proceeds Agreement to which this Letter Agreement is attached as Exhibit C, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings: "Bond Resolution" shall mean the resolution of the Authority adopted on October 23, 1997, as amended and restated on October 5, 1998, and as supplemented. "Fair Market Price" shall mean the purchase price and disposition price of a Nonpurpose Investment. Any Nonpurpose Investment purchased must be purchased at the Fair Market Price. An investment that is not of a type traded on an established market, within the meaning of Section 1273 of the Code, is rebuttably presumed to be acquired or disposed of at a price that is not equal to its fair market value. Accordingly, a premium may not be paid to adjust the yield on an investment, a lower interest rate than is usually paid may not adjust the yield on an investment and no transaction may result in a smaller profit or larger loss than would have resulted if the transaction had been at arm's-length and had the yield with respect to the Bonds not been relevant to either party. Pursuant to Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-5(d), the following are safe harbors for establishing the Fair Market Price of certificates of deposit and guaranteed investment contracts: (i) Certificate of Deposit. A certificate of deposit with a fixed interest rate, fixed payment schedule and a substantial penalty for early withdrawal will be deemed purchased for fair market value if the yield on the certificate of deposit is not less than (i) the yield on reasonably comparable direct obligations of the United States and (ii) the highest yield published or posted by the provider to be currently available from the provider on reasonably comparable certificates offered to the public. See Section 1.148- 5(d)(6)(ii) of the Treasury Regulations. (ii) Investment Agreement. Investments pursuant to a guaranteed investment contract will be regarded as being made at fair market value if (a) A bona fide solicitation for a guaranteed investment contract is made that satisfies all of the following requirements: (A) the bid specifications are in writing and are timely forwarded to potential providers, 03) the bid specifications include all material terms that may directly or indirectly affect the yield or the cost of the guaranteed investment contract, (C) the bid specifications include a statement notifying potential providers that submission of a bid is a representation that the potential provider did not consult with any other potential provider about its bid, that the bid was determined without regard to any other formal or informal agreement that the potential prOvider has with the Issuer or any other person (whether or not in connection with the issuance of the Bonds), and that the bid is not being submitted solely as a courtesy to the Issuer or any other person for purposes of satisfying the requirements contained in Section 1.148- 5(d)(6)(iii)(B)(1) or (2) of the Treasury Regulations, (D) the terms of the bid specifications are commercially reasonable in that there is a legitimate business purpose for each term other than to increase the purchase price or reduce the yield of the guaranteed investment contracts, (E) the terms of the solicitation take into account the reasonably expected deposit and drawdown schedule for the amounts C-5 to be invested, (F) all potential providers have an equal opportunity to bid and no potential provider is given the opportunity to review other bids (i.e., a "last look") before providing a bid, (G) in those cases where the Issuer engages a bidding agent to conduct the bidding, such agent did not bid to provide the investment, and (H) at least three reasonably competitive providers are solicited for bids. A "reasonably competitive provider" is a provider that has an established industry reputation as a competitive provider of investments of the same type as such guaranteed investment contract; (b) At least three bona fide bids on the guaranteed investment contract are received from providers that have no material financial interest in the Bonds. The following are deemed to have a material financial interest in the Bonds: (A) the lead purchaser in a negotiated underwriting transaction until 15 days after the issue date of the issue, 03) any entitY acting as a financial advisor with respect to the purchase of the guaranteed investment contract at the time the bid specifications are forwarded to potential providers, and (C) a provider that is a related party to a provider that has a material financial interest in the execution and delivery of the Bonds; (c) At least one of the three bids received is fi.om a reasonably competitive provider, as described above; (d) The winning bidder provides a certificate that (A) lists the recipients, amounts and purposes of any brokerage fee, placement fee, commission or administrative costs that it is paying (or expects to pay) to third parties in connection with supplying the guaranteed investment contract, (B) states that the yield on the guaranteed investment contract is not less than the yield available fi.om the provider on reasonably comparable guaranteed investment contracts offered to other persons from sources of funds other than gross proceeds of tax-exempt obligations, and (C) in those agreements wherein the Issuer deposits amounts (other than amounts deposited in debt service funds or reasonably required reserve or replacement funds) states that the Issuer's draw- down schedule was a significant factor in determining the terms of the guaranteed investment contract; (e) The highest yielding guaranteed investment contract for which a bona fide bid was made is purchased (determined net of broker's fees, if any); and (f) The following records are retained with the bond documents until three years after the last outstanding Bond is redeemed: (A) a copy of the guaranteed investment contract, (B) the receipt or other record amount actually paid for the guaranteed investment contract, including a record of any administrative costs paid and the certification under subsection (d) hereof, (C) for each bid that is submitted, the name of the person and entity submitting the bid, the time and date of the bid, and the bid results, and (D) the bid solicitation form and, if the terms of the guaranteed investment contract deviated from the bid C-6 solicitation form or a submitted bid is modified, a brief statement explaining the deviation and stating the purpose for the deviation. "Future Value" of a payment or receipt at the end of any period is determined using the economic accrual method and equals the value of that payment or receipt when it is paid or received (or treated as paid or received), plus interest assumed to be earned and compounded over the period at a rate equal to the Yield on the VPSA's Bonds, using the same compounding interval and financial conventions used to compute that yield. "Gross Proceeds" shall have the meaning ascribed to such term in Section 148 of the Code and shall mean: (a) amounts actually received or constructively received by VPSA from the sale of the VPSA's Bonds and the amounts actually or constructively received by the Local Units from the sale of the Local School Bonds, other than any interest accruing on the VPSA's Bonds from the dated date to the issue date of such bonds; (b) amounts treated as Transferred Proceeds (as defined in Treasury Regulations Section 1.148-9) of the VPSA's Bonds or the Local School Bonds, if any; (c) amounts that are reasonably expected to be or are in fact used to pay debt service on the Bonds including amounts in the sinking fund portion of the 1997 Income Fund under the Bond Resolution and the 1997 Sinking Fund under the Bond Resolution; (d) securities or obligations pledged by the VPSA or Local Unit as security for payment of debt service with respect to the VPSA's Bonds or the Local School Bonds; (e) amounts received with respect to any investments acquired with Gross Proceeds for the purpose of carrying out the governmental purpose for which the VPSA's Bonds or the Local School Bonds were issued, including the Local School Bonds, except that such amounts shall not include amounts, if any, that are properly allocable to qualified administrative costs recoverable under Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-5(e) or to the higher yield permitted under Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-2(d) or Section 143(g) of the Code; (f) amounts treated as "replacement proceeds" of the VPSA's Bonds or the Local School Bonds within the meaning of section 1.148-1(c) of the Treasury Regulations; (g) any funds that are part of a reserve or replacement fired for the VPSA Bonds or Local School Bonds; and (h) amounts received as a result of investing any Gross Proceeds. C-7 Gross Proceeds shall include amounts that are on deposit in the Income Subaccount to the extent that such amounts are derived from Gross Proceeds of the VPSA's Bonds or the Local School Bonds. The determination of whether an amount is included within this definition shall be made without regard to whether the amount is credited to any fund or account established under the Bond Resolution, or whether the amount is subject to the pledge of the Bond Resolution. For purposes of subsection (d) above, an amount is pledged to pay principal or interest with respect to VPSA's Bonds or Local School Bonds if there is a reasonable assurance that the amount will be available for such purposes in the event that the VPSA or Local Unit encounters fmancial difficulties. An amount can be indirectly pledged to pay principal or interest with respect to VPSA's Bonds or Local School Bonds if it is pledged to a guarantor of either or both such bonds. An amount may be "negatively" pledged to pay principal or interest with respect to VPSA's Bonds or Local School Bonds if it is held under an agreement to maintain the amount at a particular level for the direct or indirect benefit of the holders of the bonds or a guarantor of the bonds. An amount is not negatively pledged however if (i) VPSA or the Local Units may grant rights in the amount that are superior to the rights of the holders of the bonds or a guarantor of the bonds, or (ii) the amount does not exceed reasonable needs for which it is maintained, the required level is tested no more frequently than every 6 months, and the amount may be spent without any substantial restriction other than a requirement to replenish the amount by the next testing date. If a decision is made to apply any insurance or condemnation proceeds to the redemption of VPSA's Bonds or Local School Bonds instead of using such proceeds for repair or replacement, any such proceeds become Gross Proceeds on the date of such a decision. The definition of Gross Proceeds has been set out in full for the sake of completeness. With respect to each Local School Bond, all of the Gross Proceeds are on deposit in such Local Unit's Proceeds Account except to the extent that the Local School Bonds may be part of a composite issue under Treasury Regulation §1.150-1(c), or the Local Unit may have retained Transferred Proceeds. With respect to the VPSA's Bonds, all of its Gross Proceeds are the total of the amounts on deposit in the Proceeds Accounts of the Local Units, except as provided above, and the amounts on deposit in the sinking fund portion of its 1997 Income Fund under the Bond Resolution and the 1997 Sinking Fund under the Bond Resolution. "Investment Report" shall mean the record of investment activity maintained by the Investment Manager with respect to the investment property and the Local Units, as described in the Letter of Instructions to the Investment Manager from the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia dated [May 1, 2000]. "Local Unit's Rebate Requirement" shall mean the sum of (i) the excess of (A) the aggregate amount earned on all Nonpurpose Investments acquired with the Gross Proceeds of the Local School Bonds over 03) the amount that would have been earned if' the Nonpurpose Investments had a Yield equal to the VPSA's Bond plus (ii) any income attributable to the excess described in clause (i). C-8 "Nonpurpose Investments" shall mean any security, obligations, annuity contract or any other investment-type property (as such term is defined in Section 1.148-1(b) of the Treasury Regulations) that is not acquired to carry out the governmental purpose of the VPSA's Bonds or the Local School Bonds. Nonpurpose Investments shall not include Tax-Exempt Investments. Any Nonpurpose Investments shall be purchased by the Investment Manager only if the purchase price of the Nonpurpose Investment is the Fair Market Price. "Rebate Calculation Agent" shall mean that accounting firm with a favorable national reputation in the field of the calculation of amounts subject to rebate to the United States under Section 148(0 of the Code and the Temporary Regulations that has been appointed under Section 9.2 of the Contract or by VPSA. "Tax-Exempt Investments" shall include: (i) obligations the interest on which is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes, and not treated as an item of tax preference under Section 57(a)(5)(C) of the Code, (ii) stock in a regulated investment company to the extent that at least 95% of the income to the holder of the interest is excludable from gross income under Section 103 of the Code, and (iii) certificates of indebtedness issued by the United States Treasury pursuant to Demand Deposit State and Local Government Series program described in 31 CFR part 344 ("SLGs"). "Treasury Regulations" shall mean the Treasury Regulations Sections 1.148-0 through 1.148-11, 1.149(b)-1, 1.149(d)-1, 1.149(e)-1, 1.149(g)-1, Section 1.150-1 and Section 1.150-2, as amended from time to time hereafter, and other regulations promulgated under Section 148 of the Code. "VPSA's Rebate Requirement" shall mean the sum of (i) the excess of (A) the aggregate amount earned on all Nonpurpose Investments acquired with the Gross Proceeds of VPSA's Bonds over (B) the amount that would have been earned if the Nonpurpose Investments had a Yield equal to VPSA's Bond Yield plus (ii) any income attributable to the excess described in clause (i). "Yield", for purposes of this Letter Agreement, shall be calculated pursuant to the Treasury Regulations by means of an actuarial method of yield calculation whereby "yield" means that discount rate which, when used in computing the present value of all the unconditionally payable payments of principal and interest and all the payments for a qualified guarantee paid and to be paid with respect to the bond, produces an amount equal to the issue price of the bond. For purposes of this Letter Agreement, the Yield on VPSA's Bonds is [ ]%. The Yield on investments must be computed by the use of the same frequency interval of compounding interest as is used in computing the Yield on the VPSA's Bonds and the Local School Bonds. F. Amendments C-9 In order to comply with the covenants by VPSA and each of the Local Units regarding compliance with the requirements of the Code and the exclusion from federal income taxation of the interest paid and to be paid on the Local School Bonds and VPSA's Bonds, the procedures described in this Letter Agreement may be modified as necessary, based on the advice of counsel, to comply with rulings, regulations, legislation or judicial decisions as may be applicable to such bonds. Very truly yours, VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY By: Name: Richard A. Davis Title: Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer Accepted: Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC By: Name: A1 Samper Title: Senior Vice President C-10 Exhibit D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES The following are the Authorized Representatives of Virginia Public School Authority, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Evergreen Investment Management Company LLC: VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY: Sallie Richard A. Davis Dora D. Fazzini Title Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer Assistant Secretary and Assistant Treasurer Specimen Signature Sallie Richard H. Grattan WACHOVIA BANK, N.A.: Title Senior Vice President Specimen Signature EVERGREEN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC: Name Title Specimen Signature A1 Samper Senior Vice President 26222.000027 RICHMOND 887620vl D-1 VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY BOND SALE AGREEMENT dated as of October 1, 2002 Name of Jurisdiction (the "Local Unit"): Sale Date: Not earlier than October 7, 2002, nor later than October 24, 2002 Closing Date: On or about November 7, 2002 Proceeds Requested: Maximum Authorized Par Amount: Amortization Period: ****************************************************************************** 1. The Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") hereby offers to purchase your general obligation school bonds at a price, determined by the VPSA to be fair and accepted by you, that, subject to VPSA's purchase price objective and market conditions described below, is substantially equal to Proceeds Requested set forth above (as authorized by your bond resolution) from the proceeds of the VPSA's bonds. The sale of VPSA's bonds is tentatively scheduled for October 16, 2002 but may occur at any time during the period described above as the Sale Date. You acknowledge that VPSA has advised you that its objective is to pay you a purchase price for your bonds which in VPSA's judgment reflects their market value (''purchase price objective") taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule you have requested for your bonds relative to the amortization schedules requested by the other localities for their respective bonds, the purchase price received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA's bonds. You further acknowledge that VPSA has advised you that such factors may result in your bonds having a value other than par and that in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested you may need to issue a par amount of bonds that is greater than or lower than the Proceeds Requested. You at the request of VPSA, will issue an amount of the local school bonds not in excess of the Maximum Authorized Par Amount to provide, to the fullest extent practicable given VPSA's purchase price objective and market conditions, a purchase price for your bonds and a proceeds amount that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested. You acknowledge that the purchase price for your bonds will be less than the Proceeds Requested should the Maximum Authorized Par Amount be insufficient, based upon VPSA's purchase price objective and market conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested. For localities participating in the Interest Rate Subsidy program the VPSA will pay a purchase price for each locality's bond that will reflect the actual market value on the date of the sale. In general, the par amount will be downsized from proceeds requested for the approved Literary Fund loan to reflect the grant amount to be provided from the Literary Fund. As with prior issues subsidized local school bonds are not subject to early redemption. You represent that on or before October 1, 2002, your local governing body will have duly authorized the issuance of your bonds by adopting a resolution in the form attached hereto as Appendix B (the "local resolution") and that your bonds will be in the form set forth in the local resolution. Any changes that you or your counsel wish to make to the form of the local resolution and/or your bonds must be approved by the VPSA prior to adoption of the local resolution by your local governing body. t You hereby covenant that you will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement in the form attached hereto as Appendix F, which agreement is hereby incorporated by reference herein and expressly made a part hereof for all purposes. The VPSA has defined a Material Obligated Person ("MOP") for purposes of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement as any Local Issuer the principal amount of whose local school bonds pledged under VPSA's 1997 Resolution compromises more than 10% of the total principal amount of all outstanding 1997 Resolution bonds. MOP status will be determined by adding the principal amount of your local school bonds to be sold to the VPSA and the principal amount of your local bonds previously sold to the VPSA and currently pledged under VPSA's 1997 Resolution and measuring the total against 10% of the face value of all bonds outstanding as of the Closing Date under VPSA's 1997 Resolution. If you are or may be a MOP, the VPSA will require that you file all the information described in the following paragraph prior to VPSA's distributing its Preliminary Official Statement, currently scheduled for October 4, 2002. You acknowledge that if you are, or in the sole judgment of VPSA may be, a MOP following the issuance of your local school bonds that are the subject of this Bond Sale Agreement, the VPSA will include by specific reference in its Preliminary Official Statements and final Official Statements (for this sale and, if you remain a MOP or become a MOP again after ceasing to be a MOP, for applicable future sales) the information respecting you ("Your Information") that is on file with the Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repositories or their respective successors ("NRMSIRs") and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board or its successors ("MSRB"). Accordingly, if it appears that you will be a MOP (I) following the delivery of your local school bonds to the VPSA in connection with this sale, or (II) during the course of any future sale, whether or not you are a participant in such sale, you hereby represent and covenant to the VPSA that you will file such additional information, if any, as is required so that Your In~'ormation, as of each of (I) the date of the VPSA's applicable Preliminary Official Statement (in the case of this sale, expected to be October The local resolution has been drafted for the issuance of bonds by a County. Bond counsel will need to make appropriate changes in the local resolution for the issuance of bonds by a City or Town. 2 4, 2002), (II) the date of the VPSA's applicable f'mal Official Statement (in the case of this sale, expected to be October 16, 2002) and (III) the date of delivery of the applicable VPSA bonds (in the case of this sale, expected to be November 7, 2002), will be true and correct and will not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact which should be included in Your Information for the purpose for which it is included by specific reference in VPSA's official statement or which is necessary to make the statements contained in such information, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. You further agree to furnish to the VPSA a copy of all filings you make with NRMSIRs and the MSRB subsequent to the date of this Agreement. Such copy will be furnished to the VPSA on or before the day that any such filing is made. The VPSA will advise you within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year if you were a MOP as of the end of such fiscal year. Upon written request, the VPSA will also advise you of your status as a MOP as of any other date. You hereby covenant that you will provide the certificate described in clause (e) of Section 4 below if VPSA includes Your Information by specific reference in its disclosure documents in connection with this sale or any future sale, whether or not you are a participant in such sale. VPSA's commitment to purchase your bonds is contingent upon (I) VPSA's receipt on the Closing Date of (a) your bonds which shall include and otherwise meet the Standard Terms and Conditions contained in Appendix A hereto, (b) certified copies of the local resolution (see Appendix B attached hereto), and the school board resolution (see Appendix E attached hereto), (c) an executed agreement, among VPSA, you and the other local units simultaneously selling their bonds to VPSA, the depository and the investment manager for the State Non-Arbitrage Program ("SNAP"), providing for the custody, investment and disbursement of the proceeds of your bonds and the other general obligation school bonds, and the payment by you and the other local units of the allocable, associated costs of compliance with the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and any costs incurred in connection with your participation in SNAP (the "Proceeds Agreement"), (d) an executed copy of the Use of Proceeds Certificate in the form attached hereto as Appendix C, (e) if the VPSA has included by specific reference Your Information into the VPSA Preliminary and final Official Statement, your certificate dated the date of the delivery of the VPSA's bonds to the effect that (i) Your Information was as of the date of the VPSA's Preliminary and final Official Statements, and is as of the date of the certificate, true and correct and did not and does not contain an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact which should be included in Your Information for the purpose for which it is included by specific reference in VPSA's official statement or which is necessary to make the statements contained in such information, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, and (ii) you have complied with your undertakings regarding the amendments adopted on November 10, 1994 to Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (f) an approving legal opinion from your bond counsel in form satisfactory to VPSA as to the validity of the bonds and the exclusion from gross income for federal and Virginia income tax purposes of the interest on your bonds, the conformity of the terms and provisions of your bonds to the requirements of this Bond Sale Agreement including the appendices attached hereto, and the due authorization, execution and delivery of this Bond Sale Agreement, Continuing Disclosure Agreement and the Proceeds Agreement, and the validity of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement and the Proceeds Agreement, (g) a transcript of the other customary closing documents not listed above, and (h) the proceeds of VPSA's bonds, (II) if you will be using the proceeds of your bonds to retire a bond anticipation note, certificate of participation or other form of interim financing (the "Interim Security"), receipt by VPSA of (a) an opinion of your bond counsel that, as of the Closing Date, the Interim Security will be paid in full or defeased according to the provisions of the instrument authorizing the Interim Security (in rendering such opinion bond counsel may rely on a letter or certificate of an accounting or financial professional as to any mathematical computations necessary for the basis for such opinion) and (b) an executed copy of the escrow deposit agreement/letter of instruction providing for the retirement of the Interim Security and (III) your compliance with the terms of this agreement. Two complete transcripts (one original) of the documents listed above shall be provided by your counsel to the VPSA on the Closing Date or, with VPSA's permission, as soon as practicable thereafter but in no event more than thirty (30) business days after the Closing Date. This Bond Sale Agreement shall take effect on October 1, 2002. Virginia Public School Authority Name of Jurisdiction: By:. Authorized VPSA Representative By: Name: Title: 4 (For information only; not part of the Bond Sale Agreement.) Please have the presiding officer, or other specifically designated agent, of your governing body execute 2 (two) copies of this Bond Sale Agreement and return them, along with the tax questionnaire attached hereto as Appendix D, no later than close of business on October 1, 2002 to, Richard A. Davis, Public Finance Manager, Virginia Public School Authority, P. O. Box 1879, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1879 or by hand or courier service, James Monroe Building- 3rd Floor, 101 N. 14th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. The VPSA recommends the use of an overnight delivery service to ensure timely arrival of your documents. If your governing body or bond counsel requires more than one originally signed Bond Sale Agreement, please send the appropriate number; all but one will be returned at closing. 5 APPENDIX A to the Bond Sale Agreement STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS Described below are terms of the local school bonds which must be embodied in your bond resolution and bond form and other conditions which must be met in order for VPSA to purchase your local school bonds on the Closing Date. VPSA will not purchase local school bonds unless and until such terms are present in the related bond resolution and bond form adopted by your governing body and such conditions are met. Interest and Principal Payments Your bonds will bear interest from the Closing Date~ set forth in the Bond Sale Agreement and will mature on July 15 of the years and in the amounts as established by VPSA. Your bonds will bear interest payable in installments due semiannually on January 15 and July 15. The first interest installment will be payable on January 15, 2003 and the first principal installment will be payable on July 15, 2003. Your bonds will bear interest at rates 10 basis points (0.10%) above the actual rates on VPSA's bonds with corresponding principal payment dates. Payment For so long as the VPSA is the registered owner of your bonds, (i) the paying agent and bond registrar therefor shall be a bank or trust company qualified to serve as such, and (ii) all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest shall be made in funds that shall be immediately available to the VPSA on or before 11:00 A.M. on the applicable interest or principal payment date, or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for banks in Virginia or for the Commonwealth, then on or before 11:00 A.M. on the business day preceding such If VPSA does notpurchase your local school bonds on the Closing Date due to your .fault, VPSA will invest, in demand or overnight investments, the amount of its bond proceeds to be used to purchase your local school bonds. If you cure your failure to deliver your local school bonds within the sixty (60) day period following the Closing Date, the VPSA will purchase your local school bonds and your bonds will bear interest from the date of delivery and payment or other date satisfactory to the VPSA. You will, however, be required to pay to VPSA at your actual closing an amount equal to the positive difference, if any, between the amount of interest that would have accrued on your local school bonds from the Closing Date to your actual closing date and the lesser of the amount of interest income VPSA was able to earn, during such period, from the investment of its bond proceeds pending their use to purchase your bonds and the arbitrage yield on the VPSA's bonds. A-1 scheduled due date. Overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rates on your bonds. Prepa?nent or Redemption Bonds will be subject to redemption at the option of your governing body, subject to the consent .of the VPSA or other registered owner. Your bond resolution shall provide for prepayment or redemption.as follows: The bonds maturing after July 15, 2012 are subject to optional prepayment or redemption prior to maturity by [the issuer], from any available moneys, in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2012, at the following prepayment or redemption prices on the following prepayment or redemption dates, plus accrued interest to the date fixed for prepayment or redemption: Dates Price July 15, 2012 through July 14, 2013 July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2014 July 15, 2014 and thereafter 101% 100½ 100 Provided, however, that the bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their respective maturities except with the prior written consent of the registered owner. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given to the registered owner by registered mail at least 60, but not more than 90, days prior to the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Security Your bonds must constitute valid and binding general obligations for the payment of which the full faith and credit of the local unit are irrevocably pledged, and all taxable property within the boundaries of the local unit must be subject to the levy of an ad valorem tax, over and above all other taxes and without limitation as to rate or amount, for the payment of the principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on the bonds to the extent other funds of the local trait are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. Tax Matters You shall complete the Questionnaire attached hereto as Appendix D to the Bond Sale Agreement and send along with the Bond Sale Agreement no later than the close of business on October 1, 2002 to Richard A. Davis, Public Finance Manager, Virginia Public School Authority, P.O. Box 1879, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1879. If delivered by hand to, Richard A. Davis, Public Finance Manager, Virginia Public School Authority, James Monroe Building- 3rd Floor, 101 N. 14th Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. You shall execute the Use of Proceeds Certificate in the form provided in Appendix C A-2 attached to the Bond Sale Agreement for receipt by the VPSA at least three business days prior to the Closing Date.2 No Composite Issue You will covenant not to sell or deliver, without VPSA's consent, any general obligation bonds which are part of the same common plan of financing (and payable from the same source of funds) as your local school bonds, beginning, in the case of a sale, 15 days in advance of and ending 15 days after the Sale Date. Request and Consent of County School Board3 Before the governing body of a County adopts the bond resolution, the County School Board must first request, by resolution, the governing body to take such action. The County School Board must also consent to the issuance of bonds by the County. (See form of resolution in Appendix E attached hereto.) Public Hearing and Notice Before the final authorization of your issuance of the bonds by the governing body, the govermng body must hold a public hearing on the proposed issue unless the issuance of such bonds has been approved at referendum. The notice of the hearing, meeting the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, must be published once a week for 2 successive weeks (notices at least 7 days apart) in a newspaper published or having general circulation in your locality. The public heating may not be held less than 6 nor more than 21 days after the date the second notice appears in the newspaper. Delivery VPSA will accept delivery of your bonds only in the form of a single, typewritten, temporary bond, in registered form, payable to VPSA. The form of the bond is included as Exhibit A to the resolution in Appendix B to the Bond Sale Agreement. On 20 days written notice from VPSA, you agree to deliver, at your expense, in exchange for the typewritten bond, on one or more occasions, one or more temporary bonds or definitive bonds in marketable form and, in any case, in fully registered form, in denominations' of $5,000 and whole multiples 'thereof, and having the same aggregate principal amount and accruing interest at the same rates as the bonds surrendered in exchange, as requested by VPSA. 2 VPSA requires that the Use of Proceeds Certificate be executed separately from the tax certificates prepared by your bond counsel. Your bond counsel may also prepare one or more tax certificates that contain some information found in the Use of Proceeds Certificate in addition to information such as your reasonable expectations as to meeting the requirements to any of the rebate exceptions. Not applicable to cities and towns. (Section 15.2-2640, Code of Virginia) A-3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Annually for the life of your bonds, you will be required to submit a copy of your locality's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ("CAFR") or annual audited financial statements to the rating agencies referenced below: Moody's Investors Service, Inc. Public Finance Department Attention: Kathleen Holt 99 Church Street New York, New York 10007 Fitch Ratings Governmental Finance Attention: Claire G. Cohen One State Street Plaza New York, New York 10004 A-4 [Appropriate Changes Will Need to be Made for Cities and Towns] APPENDIX B to the Bond Sale Agreement [Non-Subsidy] Resolution No. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $ GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF ~ VIRGINIA, SERIES 2002 __, TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of , Virginia (the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $ and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes; and WHEREAS, the County [held/will holdl a public hearing, duly noticed, on ,2002, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and~ WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) and consented to the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $ is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested") from the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") in connection with the sale of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking consideration of such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds relative to the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of the VPSA's bonds; and Omit and substitute appropriate recitative paragraph if bonds have been approved at referendum or to expressly elect to issue under the Public Finance Act pursuant to Section 15.2-2601 without regard to provisions of a charter or local or special act. B-1 WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is greater than or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the bonds set forth in section 1 below does not exceed the amount of the discount the purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF , VIRGINIA: 1 Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ 2 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes as described in Exhibit B. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2 Sale of the Bon ds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of the "VPSA" to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price, determined by the VPSA to be fair and accepted by the Chairman of the Board and the County [Administrator/Manager], or either of them [that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds may be sold for a purchase price not lower than [ ]% of the Proceeds Requested if issuing the Bonds in the maximum principal amount authorized by Section 1 of this Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested]. The Chairman of the Board, the County [Administrator/Manager], or either of them and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of October 1, 2002, with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA. The agreement shall be in substantially the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement"). 3 Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2002__"; shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 beginning July 15, 2003 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at the rates established in accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto (the "Principal Installments"), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution. 4 Interest Rates and Principal Installments. The County [Administrator/Manager] is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the 105% of the amount of the Proceeds Requested is recommended. B-2 interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed [five and sixty one-hundredths percent (5.60 %)] per annum. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of the VPSA. The County [Administrator/Manager] is hereby authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments at the request of the VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed the amount authorized by this Resolution. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest rates established by the VPSA and Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested by the VPSA as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5 Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6 Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: (a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds. (c) Paying Agent for the Bonds. , Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and 7 Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2012, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2012, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2012, and the definitive bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2012, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2012, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2012 through July 14, 2013 101% B-3 July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2014 July 15, 2014 and thereafter IO01A lOO Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. 8 Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. 9 Pledge of Full Faith and Credit, For the prompt payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10 Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman of the Board, the County [Administrator/Manager] and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of Proceeds Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11 State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County [Treasurer/Director of Finance] to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The Chairman of the Board, the County [Administrator/Manager] and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, substantially in the form submitted to the Board at this meeting, which form is hereby approved. B-4 12 Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County [Administrator/Manager] and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth thc reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with thc provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should thc County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 13 Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County arc hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 14 Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15 Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of , Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on ,2002, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. [ hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. Members present at the meeting were: Members absent from the meeting were: Members voting in favor of the foregoing resolution were: Members voting against the foregoing resolution were: Members abstaining from voting on the foregoing resolution were: WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of , Virginia, this day of ,2002. [SEAL] Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of , Virginia B-5 EXHIBIT A (FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND) [Non-SubSidy] NO. TR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF General Obligation School Bond Series 2002 The COUNTY OF , VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value received, hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY the principal amount of DOLLARS ($ ), in annual installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15, 2003 and annually on July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 2022 (each a "Principal Payment Date"), together with interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi- annually on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing on July 15, 2003 (each an "Interest Payment Date"; together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum set forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provided. Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Letter designation, if any. B-6 For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this Bond, , as bond registrar (the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender hereof, to the Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of principal, premium, if any, or interest on this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to the Bond Registrar for cancellation. The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.2-2624, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, requires, that there shall be lev/ed and collected an annual tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall become due which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. B-7 This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County to provide funds for capital projects for school purposes. This Bond may be exchanged without cost, on twenty (20) days written notice from the Virginia Public School Authority, at the office of the Bond Registrar on one or more occasions for one or more temporary bonds or definitive bonds in marketable form and, in any case, in fully registered form, in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, and having an equal aggregate principal mount, having principal installments or maturities and bearing interest at rates corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of principal of this Bond then unpaid. This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School Authority on the books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by the registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to be registered on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such assignment. The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before July 15, 2012 and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2012, are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The principal installments of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2012, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2012, are subject to prepayment or B-8 redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2012, upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2012 through July 14, 2013 July 15, 2013 through July 14, 2014 July 15, 2014 and thereafter 101% 1001/2 100 Provided, however., that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without the prior written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of has caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of ., Virginia, to be signed by its Chairman or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated ,2002. COUNTY OF VIRGINIA B-9 (SEAL) ATTEST: Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of , Virginia Chairman, Board of Supervisors of the County of ~ Virgima B-10 ASSIGNMENT FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints attomey to exchange said Bond for definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Date: Signature Guaranteed: (NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Bond Registrar which requirements will include Membership or participation in STAMP or such other "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by Registered Owner (NOTICE: The signature above must correspond with the name of the Registered Owner as it appears on the front of this Bond in every particular, without alteration or change.) the Bond Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. B-11 APPENDIX C to the Bond Sale Agreement USE OF PROCEEDS CERTIFICATE [FOR NEW MONEY] The $ General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2002 (the "Bonds") issued by [Name of Local Unit] (the "Issuer") will be purchased bythe Virginia Public School Authority ("VPSA") from the proceeds of the VPSA's $ School Financing Bonds (1997 Resolution), Series 2002 A (the "VPSA's Bonds"), pursuant to a Bond Sale Agreement dated as of October 1, 2002. The proceeds of the Bonds will be used to acquire, construct and equip public school facilities owned and/or operated by the school board for the Issuer (the "School Board'). The Issuer and the School Board each recognize that certain facts, estimates and representations set forth in the Certificate as to Arbitrage executed by VPSA in connection with the issuance of the VPSA's Bonds must be based on the representations and certifications of the Issuer and the School Board, upon which VPSA and Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, its bond counsel ("Bond Counsel') rely, and that the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on the VPSA's Bonds depends on the use of proceeds of the VPSA's and the Issuer's Bonds. Accordingly, the Issuer and the School Board hereby covenant that: Section 1. Description of Project. The proceeds of the Bonds, including investment income thereon ("proceeds"), will be used to finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of public school facilities of the Issuer (the "Project"). Section2. Governmental Use of Proceeds. The Issuer and the School Board covenant the following with respect to the use of proceeds of the Bonds and the facilities financed therewith: (a) In General. (i) Private Business Use. No more than ten percent (10%) of the proceeds of the Bonds or the Project (based on the greatest of: (A) the cost allocated on the basis of space occupied, (B) the fair market value, or (C) the actual cost of construction) has been or, so long as the Bonds are outstanding, will be, used in the aggregate for any activities that constitute a "Private Use" (as such term is defined below in subsection (d) of this Section 2). (ii) Private Security or Payment. No more than ten percent (10%) of the principal of or interest on the Bonds, under the terms thereof or any underlying arrangement, has been, or, so long as the Bonds are outstanding, will be, directly or indirectly, (A) secured by any interest in (I) property used for a Private Use or (II) payments in respect of such property or (B) derived from payments in respect of property used or to be used for a Private Use, whether or not such property is a part of the Project. (b) No Disproportionate or Unrelated Use. With respect to private business use disproportionate to or not related to governmental use financed or refinanced with the proceeds C-1 of the Bonds, no more than five percent (5%) of the principal of or interest on such Bonds, under the terms thereof or any underlying arrangement, has been, or, so long as the Bonds are outstanding, will be, directly or indirectly, (x) secured by any interest in (I) property used for a Private Use or (II) payments in respect of such property or (y) derived from payments in respect of property used or to be used for a Private Use, whether or not such property is a part of the Project. (c) No Private Loan Financing. No proceeds of the Bonds will be used to make or finance loans to any person other than to a state or local governmental unit. (d) Definition of Private Use. For purposes of this CertifiCate, the term "Private Use" means any activity that constitutes a trade or business that is carried on by persons or entities other than state or local governmental entities. Any activity carried on by a person other than a natural person is treated as a trade or business. The leasing of property financed or refinanced with the proceeds of the Bonds or the access of a person other than a state or local governmental unit to property or services on a basis other than as a member of the general public shall constitute Private Use unless the Issuer obtains an opinion of Bond Counsel to the contrary. Use of property financed or refinanced with proceeds of the Bonds by any person, other than a state or local governmental unit, in its trade Or business constitutes general public use only if the property is intended to be available and is in fact reasonably available for use on the same basis by natural persons not engaged in a trade or business ("General Public Use"). In most cases Private Use will occur only if a nongovernmental person has a special legal entitlement to use the fmanced or refinanced property under an arrangement with the Issuer or the School Board. Such a special legal entitlement would include ownership or actual or beneficial use of the Project pursuant to a lease, management or incentive payment contract, output contract, research agreement or similar arrangement. In the case of property that is not available for General Public Use, Private Use may be established solely on the basis of a special economic benefit to one or more nongovernmental persons. In determining whether special economic benefit gives rise to Private Use, it is necessary to consider all of the facts and circumstances, including one or more of the following factors: (i) whether the financed or refinanced property is functionally related or physically proximate to property used in the trade or bus/ness of a nongovernmental person; (ii) whether only a small number of nongovernmental persons receive the economic benefit; and (iii) whether the cost of the financed or refinanced property is treated as depreciable by the nongovernmental person. As of the date hereof, no portion of the Project is leased (or will be so leased) by the Issuer or the School Board (or a related party or agent) to a person or entity other than a state or local governmental unit or to members of the general public for General Public Use. C-2 (e) Management and Service Contracts. With respect to management and service contracts, the determination of whether a particular use constitutes Private Use under this Certificate shall be determined on the basis of applying Revenue Procedure 97-13, 1997-1 C. B. 632, as modified by Revenue Procedure 2001-39, 2001-28 I.R.B. 38 (collectively, "Revenue Procedure 97-13"). As of the date hereof, no portion of the proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds is being used to finance or refinance property subject to contracts or other arrangements with persons or entities engaged in a trade or business (other than governmental units) that involve the management of property or the provision of services with respect to property financed or refinanced with proceeds of the Bonds that does not comply with the standards of Revenue Procedure 97-13. For purposes of determining the nature of a Private Use, any arrangement that is properly characterized as a lease for federal income tax purposes is treated as a lease. Consequently, an arrangement that is referred to as a management or service contract may nevertheless be treated as a lease. In determining whether a management contract is properly characterized as a lease, it is necessary to consider all of the facts and circumstances, including the following factors: (i) the degree of control over the property that is exerciSed by a nongovernmental person; and (ii) whether a nongovernmental person bears risk of loss of the financed or refinanced property. Section 3. Time Test and Due Diligence Test. The Issuer or the School Board have incurred or will incur within 6 months of the date hereof substantial binding obligations, which are not subject to contingencies within the control of the Issuer or the School Board or a related party, to third parties to expend at least 5% of the net sale proceeds of the Bonds on the Project. The Issuer and the School Board will proceed with due diligence to spend all of the proceeds of the Bonds within three years of the date hereof. Section 4. Dispositions and Change in Use. (a) No Sale or Disposition. The Issuer and the School Board expect to own and operate anddo not expect to sell or otherwise dispose of the Project, or any component thereof, prior to the final maturity date of the VPSA's Bonds (August 1,202_). (b) Change in Use. The Issuer and the School Board represent, warrant and covenant that the facilities financed or refinanced with proceeds of the Bonds will be used for the governmental purpose of the Issuer and the School Board during the period of time the Bonds are outstanding, unless an opinion of Bond Counsel is received with respect to any proposed change in use of the Project. (c) Tax Covenant. The Issuer and the School Board each represents, warrants and covenants that it will take no action that would cause either the Bonds or the VPSA's Bonds to be private activity bonds within the meaning of Section 141(a) of the Code and that it will not fail to take any action that would prevent the VPSA's Bonds and the Bonds from being private activity bonds, within the meaning of Section 141(a) of the Code. Furthermore, the Issuer and C-3 the School Board have established reasonable procedures to ensure compliance with this covenant. Section 5. No Sinking or Pledged Funds. The Issuer and the School Board have not established and will not establish any funds or accounts that are reasonably expected to be used to pay debt service on the Bonds or that are pledged (including negative pledges) as collateral for the Bonds for which there is a reasonable assurance that amounts on deposit therein will be available to pay debt service on the Bonds if the Issuer or the School Board encounters financial difficulty. Section 6. No Replacement Proceeds. (a) In General. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be used as a substitute for other funds that prior to the Issuer's resolving to proceed with the issuance of the Bonds was used or is to be used to pay any cost of the Project. (b) Safe Harbor. In accordance with Section 1.148-1(c) of the Treasury Regulations regarding the safe harbor against the creation of "replacement proceeds", as of the date hereof, the weighted average maturity of the Bonds does not exceed 120% of the reasonably expected economic life of the Project financed thereby. Section 7. No Refunding. The proceeds of the Bonds will not be used to provide for the payment of any principal of or interest on any obligations of the Issuer, other than the Bonds, incurred in the exercise of its borrowing power. Section 8. Composite Issue. There are no other obligations of the Issuer that have been, or will be (a) sold within 15 days of the Bonds, (b) sold pursuant to the same plan of financing together with the Bonds, and (c) paid out of substantially the same source of funds as the Bonds. Section 9. No Federal Guarantee. The Issuer and the School Board shall not take or permit any action that would cause (a) the payment of principal of or interest on the Bonds to be guaranteed, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof or (b) 5 percent or more of the proceeds of the Bonds to be (i) used in making loans the payment of principal of or interest on which is guaranteed in whole or in part by the United States or any agency or instrumentality thereof or (ii) invested directly or indirectly in federally insured deposits or accounts (except as permitted under Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), or the regulations promulgated thereunder). The Issuer and the School Board have not, and will not enter into, any (i) long-term service contract with any federal governmental agency, (ii) service contract with any federal governmental agency under terms that are materially different from the terms of any contracts with any persons other than federal government agencies, and (iii) lease of property to any federal government agency that would cause the Bonds to be considered "federally guaranteed" within the meaning of Section 149(b) of the Code. Section 10. No Hedge Bonds. The Issuer and the School each reasonably expects that all of the net sale proceeds of the Bonds will be used to pay the cost of the Project within three C~4 years of the date hereof. Furthermore, not more than 50 percent of the proceeds of the Bonds will be invested in Nonpurpose Investments (as such term is def'med in Section 148(f)(6)(A) of the Code) having a substantially guaranteed yield for four years or more. Section 11. No Overissuance. The total proceeds derived by the Issuer from the sale of the Bonds and anticipated investment earnings thereon do not exceed the total of the amounts necessary to finance the Project. Section 12. Reimbursable Expenses. A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds to be applied to the cost of the Project will be used to reimburse the Issuer for expenditures incurred thereby with respect to the Project in anticipation of the issuance of the Bonds. The Issuer and the School Board represent the following with respect to the costs of the Project to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the Bonds. (a) Official Intent. The total amount of reimbursed costs incurred by the Issuer with respect to the Project is not expected to exceed . Such expenditures were paid prior to the date hereof but no earlier than sixty (60) days prior to , , which is the date the Issuer or the School Board adopted its "official intent" declaration (the "Official Intent Declaration") in accordance with Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations. The Official Intent Declaration: (i) was, on the date of its adoption, intended to constitute a written documentation on behalf of the Issuer that states that the Issuer reasonably expected to reimburse itself for such expenditures with the proceeds of a taxable or tax-exempt borrowing, (ii) set forth a general description of the Project, and (iii) Project. stated the maximum principal amount of debt expected to be issued for the Neither the Issuer nor the School Board has taken any action subsequent to the expression of such intent that would contradict or otherwise be inconsistent with such intent. (b) Reasonable Official Intent. As of the date of the Official Intent Declaration, the Issuer reasonably expected to reimburse such expenditures with the proceeds of a borrowing. The Issuer does not have a pattern of failing to reimburse expenditures for which an intention to reimburse such expenditures was declared and which were actually paid by the Issuer other than in circumstances that were unexpected and beyond the control of the Issuer. (c) Reimbursement Period Requirement. The proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds to be applied to reimburse the above-described expenditures will be so applied no later than the later of the date that is (i) eighteen (18) months after the date on which the expenditure being reimbursed was paid, or (ii) eighteen (18) months after the date on which the portion of the Project to which such expenditure relates was placed in service (within the meaning of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations) or abandoned. The Issuer shall not, however, use Bond proceeds to reimburse the above-described expenditures later than three (3) years after the date the original expenditure was paid. C-5 (d) Reimbursable Expenditures. The expenditures to be reimbursed are either (i) capital expenditures (within the meaning of Section 1.150-1 (b) of the Treasury Regulations), (ii) costs of issuance, (iii) certain working capital expenditures for extraordinary, nonrecurring items that are not customarily payable from current revenues (within the meaning of Section 1.148-6 (d) (3) (ii) (B) of the Treasury Regulations), (iv) grants (within the meaning of Section 1.148-6 (d) (4) of the Treasury Regulations), or (v) qualified student loans, qualified mortgage loans or qualified veterans' mortgage loans (within the meaning of Section 1.150-1(b) of the Treasury Regulations). None of the expenditures to be reimbursed were incurred for day-to-day operating costs or similar working capital items. No portion of the proceeds of the Bonds being used to reimburse the Issuer for prior expenditures will be used, directly or indirectly, within one year of the date of a reimbursement allocation, in a manner that results in the creation of replacement proceeds (within the meaning of Section 1.148-1 of the Treasury Regulations), other than amounts deposited in a bona fide debt service fund. (e) Anti-Abuse Rules. None of the proceeds o'f the Bonds is being used in a manner that employs an abusive arbitrage device under Section 1.148-10 of the Treasury Regulations to avoid the arbitrage restrictions or to avoid the restrictions under Sections 142 through 147 of the Code. Section 13. Covenant as to Arbitrage. The Issuer and the School Board each hereby covenants that whether or not any of the Bonds remain outstanding, the money on deposit in any fund or account maintained in connection with the Bonds, whether or not such money was derived from the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds or from any other sources, will not be used in a manner that would cause the Bonds or the VPSA's Bonds to be arbitrage bonds within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the applicable regulations thereunder. Date: [NAME OF LOCAL ISSUER] By: Name: Title: [NAME OF SCHOOL BOARD] By: Name: Title: C-6 APPENDIX D to the Bond Sale Agreement CONSTRUCTION EXCEPTION AND EIGHTEEN MONTH EXCEPTION TO THE REBATE REQUIREMENT QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to elicit facts concerning the expenditure of the proceeds of the City/County of (the "Issuer") general obligation school bonds (the "Bonds") in order to make an initial determination that the construction exception from the rebate requirement provided by Section 148(f)(4)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the eighteen month exception from the rebate requirement provided by Section 1.148-7(d) of the Treasury Regulations is available. Please supply the information requested below and send this questionnaire to Richard A. Davis, Public Finance Manager, Virginia Public School Authority, P. O. Box 1879, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1879, for receipt no later April 1, 2002, with a copy to your bond counsel. Briefly describe the project (the "Project") to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds including the useful life of the project(s) being financed. 2. (a) Indicate the total amount of proceeds to be derived from the sale of the Bonds. Indicate the amount that you reasonably expect to receive from the investment of the Bond proceeds prior to spending all of the Bond proceeds set forth above in Question 2 (a). (c) Indicate the amount of proceeds derived from the sale of the Bonds that you expect to use to finance the issuance costs of the Bonds. (e.g. your legal fees) (d) The amount set forth in Questions 2(a) plus the amount set forth in Question 2(b) reduced by the amount set forth in Question 2(c) equals $ This amount is hereinafter referred to as "Available Construction Proceeds". Any bond premium derived from sale of the bonds and any investment earnings thereon will be treated as Available Construction Proceeds. D-1 o Indicate the amount of money, other than the Available Construction Proceeds of the Bonds, that will be applied toward the cost of the Project and the expected source of such money. Indicate what such money will be used for. o Indicate, by principal components, your current estimates of the cost for the acquisition and construction of the Project that will be financed with the Available Construction Proceeds of the Bonds, including: (a) Acquisition of Interest in Land (b) Acquisition of Interest in Real Property~ (c) Acquisition and/or Installation of Tangible Personal Propertya (d) Site Preparation (e) Construction of Real Propert~ (f) Reconstruction of Real Property4 (g) Rehabilitation of Real Property5 (h) Construction of Tangible Personal Property6 (i) Specially developed computer sofh~are7 For purposes of this questionnaire, "real property" means improvements to land, such as buildings or other inherently permanent stmcmres, including items that are structural components of such buildings or structures. For example, real property includes wiring in a building, plumbing systems, central heating or central air conditioning systems, pipes or ducts, elevators or escalators installed in a building, paved parking areas, road, wharves and docks, bridges and sewage lines. 2. For purposes of this questionnaire, tangible personal property means any tangible property except real property. For example, tang~ole personal property includes machinery that is not a structural component of a building, fire tracks, automobiles, office equipment, testing equipment and furnishings. 3. See description of real property in endnote 1. This includes all capital expenditures that are properly chargeable to or may be capital/zed as part of the basis of the real property prior to the date the property is placed in service. For purposes of this questionnaire, expenditures are considered paid in connection with the construction, reconstruction or rehabilitation of real property if the contract between the Issuer and the seller requires the seller to build or install the property (such as under a "turnkey contract") but only to the extent the property has not been built or installed at the time the parties enter into the contract. If the property has been partially built or installed at the time the parties enter into the contract, the expenditures that are allocable to the portion of the property built or installed before that time are expenditures for the acquisition of real property. 4. See endnote 3. 5. See endnote 3. 6. For purposes of this questionnaire, expenditures are in connection with the constmction of tangible personal property, as defined in endnote 2, if: (a) A substantial portion of the property or properties is completed more than 6 months after the earlier of the date construction or rehabilitation commenced and the date the Issuer entered into an acquisition contract; (b) Based on the reasonable expectations of the Issuer, if any, or representations of the person constructing the property, with the exercise of due diligence, completion of constmction or rehabilitation (and delivery to the Issuer) could not have occurred within that 6-month period; and (c) If the Issuer itself builds or rehabilitates the property, not more than 75% of the capitalizable cost is attributable to property acquired by the Issuer (e.g., components, raw materials and other supplies). D-2 (j) Interest on the Bonds during Construction (k) Other (please specify) (1) Total $ (Note: The sum of the amounts described in (a) through (k) must equal the amount of Available Construction Proceeds of the Bonds set forth in Question 2(d).) 5. (a) Have you borrowed, direCtly or indirectly, (such as through an industrial development authority) any money, either through a tax-exempt bank loan, a bond anticipation note, any tax-exempt or taxable obligation or otherwise (a "loan"), to pay for the Project costs? Yes No (b) Do you intend to use the proceeds of the Bonds to refinance or repay any loan used to finance the Project costs? Yes No If the answer to Question 5(b) is "Yes", please attach a copy of the BAN, COP, or other evidence of the loan and any tax certificate executed with such loan and indicate the following: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vii) (viii) Amount of loan: Date of loan: Maturity date of loan: Interest rate of loan: Name of lender: Refinance or repayment date: Amount of unspent proceeds, if any: Where unspent proceeds are being held (e.g. SNAP): (d) If the answer to question 5(a) or (b) is "Yes", did you use the proceeds of the loan to reimburse yourself for expenses paid with respect to the Project before the loan was obtained? Yes No (e) If the answer to question 5 (b) is "Yes", do you expect to qualify for the small issuer exception for the loan. Yes No 7. Specially developed computer software means any programs or routines used to cause a computer to perform a desired task or set of tasks, and the documentation required to descrl~be and maintain those programs, provided that the software is specially developed and is functionally related and subordinate to real property or other constructed personal property. D-3 o (a) Do you intend to reimburse yourself from the proceeds of the Bonds for Project costs advanced from your General Fund or other available sources? Yes No (b) If the answer to Question 5(d) or Question 6 (a) is "Yes", with respect to all such expenditures, please indicate the amount of such expenditure, when such expenditure was paid and the purpose of the expenditure (i.e., architectural fees, engineering fees, other construction costs): (i) Amount expended $ (ii) Date of expenditure: (iii) Purpose of expenditure: (Note: if you intend to reimburse yourself for more than one expenditure, please attach a rider setting forth: (i) amount expended, (ii) date of expenditure, and (iii) purpose of expenditure) o If the answer to Question 5(d) or 6(a) is "Yes" please attach a copy of any other evidence of your intention to reimburse yourself with the proceeds of a borrowing such as the earliest possible resolution, declaration or minutes of a meeting. Include the date such resolution was adopted, meeting was held or declaration made. [The purpose of questions 8, 9 and 10 is to determine if the Bonds may qualify for the Construction Exception from the Rebate Requirement.] o Indicate whether the total of the amounts shown in 4(d) through (i) on page D-2 is at least 75% of the amount of Available Construction Proceeds (i.e., 75% of the amount in 4(i). Yes No If the answer to Question 8 is "Yes", answer Question 9 and skip Question 10. If the answer to Question 8 is "No", skip Question 9 and answer Question 10. D-4 10. (a) Assuming the Bonds are delivered on November 7, 2002, and funds are made available to you on that date, please complete the following schedule indicating the amount of Available Construction Proceeds that the City/County expects to expend and disburse during the following time periods: From November 7, 2002 to May 7, 2003 $ From May 8, 2003 to November 7, 2003 From November 8, 2003 to May 7, 2004 From May 8, 2004 to November 7, 2004 Total9 $ If you do not expect to spend 100% of Available Construction Proceeds by November 7, 2004, do you expect to spend 100% of Available Construction Proceeds by November 7, 2005? Yes No For purposes of this Question 10, assume that the Bonds are delivered on November 7, 2002 and funds are made available to you on that date. (a) Does the City/County expect to expend and disburse the amount shown in Question 4(a) for the acquisition of land by May 7, 2003? Yes No (b) Does the City/County expect to expend and disburse the amount shown in Question 4(b) for the acquisition of interests in real property by May 7, 2003? Yes No (c) Does the City/County expect to expend and disburse the amount shown in Question 4(c) for the acquisition and/or installation of tangible personal Property by May 7, 2003? Yes No (d) (i) Does the City/County expect to expend and disburse the amount shown in question 4(1) by November 7, 2005? Yes No s. Include amounts expended prior to May 16, 2002 and approved by your bond counsel for reimbursement from your bond proceeds. This does not include any amount used to refinance or repay any loan. 9. Total should equal the amount in 4(1). D-5 (e) Assuming that the Bonds are delivered on November 7, 2002, and funds are made available to you on that date, please complete the following schedule indicating the amount of Available Construction Proceeds that the City/County expects to expend and disburse during the following time periods: From November 7, 2002 to May 7, 2003 From May 8, 2003 to November 7, 2003 From November 8, 2003 to May 7, 2004 From May 8, 2004 to November 7, 2004 $ 10 Total $ [The purpose of question 11 is to determine if the Bonds may qualify for the Eighteen Month Exception from the Rebate Requirement.] 11. The sum of the amounts set forth in Questions 2(a) and 2(b) equals $ (the "gross proceeds"). Assuming that the Bonds are delivered on November 7, 2002 and funds are made available to you on that date, please complete the following schedule indicating the amount of gross proceeds that the City/County expects to expend and disburse during the following time periods: From November 7, 2002 to May 7, 2003 From May 8, 2003 to November 7, 2003 From November 8, 2003 to May 7, 2004 $ 11 Total $ 12. (a) Will this issue qualify for the Small Issuer Exception? Yes No (b) List any general obligation bond fmancings the City/County has undertaken or is planning to undertake in the calendar year 2002. lo. Include amounts expended prior to November 7, 2002 and approved by your bond counsel for reimbursement from your bond proceeds. This does not include any amount used to refinance or repay any loan. 11 Include amounts expended prior to November 7, 2002 and approved by your bond counsel for reimbursement from your bond proceeds. This does not include any amount used to refinance or repay any loan. D-6 I understand that the foregoing information will be relied upon by the Virginia Public School Authority (the "Authority") in determining the applicability of the construction exception to the Authority's School Financing Bonds (1997 Resolution), Series 2002 B. I hereby certify that I am familiar with the Project or have made due inquiry in order to complete this Questionnaire with respect to the Project and am authorized by the City/County to provide the foregoing information w/th respect to it, which information is tree, correct, and complete, to the best of my knowledge. Name of Person Completing Questionnaire Title Signature Date D-7 APPENDIX E to the Bond Sale Agreement RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS FOR SCHOOL PURPOSES AND CONSENTING TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The School Board of the County of hereby (i) requests, pursuant to Section 15.2-2640 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the "Code"), that the Board of Supervisors of the County of issue its general obligation school bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $ (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes and (ii) consents, pursuant to Section 15.2- 2638.B(iii) of the Code and Article VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution of Virginia, to the issuance of the Bonds. 2. This resolution shall take effect 'immediately. Members present at the meeting were: from the meeting were: resolution were: were: resolufionwere: Members absent Members voting in favor of the foregoing Members voting against the foregoing resolution · Members abstaining from voting on the foregoing E-1 APPENDIX F to the Bond Sale Agreement CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT [This Continuing Disclosure Agreement will impose obligations on the Local Issuer if and only if the Local Issuer is or has become and remains a "Material Obligated Person", as defined below] This Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Disclosure Agreement") is executed and delivered by the undersigned local issuer (the "Local Issuer') in connection with the issuance by the Virginia Public School Authority (the "Authority") of $ aggregate principal amount of its School Financing Bonds (1997 Resolution) Series 2002 A (the "Series 2002 A Bonds") pursuant to the provisions of a bond resolution (the "1997 Resolution") adopted on October 23, 1997, as amended and restated. The Series 2002 A Bonds and all other parity bonds heretofore and hereafter issued under the 1997 Resolution are collectively called the "Bonds". A portion of the proceeds of the 2002 Series A Bonds are being used by the Authority to purchase certain general obligation school bonds ("Local School Bonds") of the Local Issuer pursuant to a bond sale agreement between the Authority and the Local Issuer (the "Bond Sale Agreement"). Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement, the Local Issuer hereby covenants and agrees as follows: SECTION 1. Purpose of the Disclosure Agreement. This Disclosure Agreement is being executed and delivered by the Local Issuer for the benefit of the holders of the Series 2002 A Bonds and in order to assist the Participating Underwriters (defined below) in complying with the Rule (defined below). The Local Issuer acknowledges that it is undertaking primary responsibility for any reports, notices or disclosures that may be required under this Agreement. SECTION 2. Definitions. In addition to the definitions set forth in the 1997 Resolution, which apply to any capitalized term used in this Disclosure Agreement unless otherwise defined in this Section, the following capitalized terms shall have the following meamngs: "Annual Report" shall mean any Annual Report provided by the Local Issuer pursuant to, and as described in, Sections 3 and 4 of this Disclosure Agreement. "bond sale agreement" shall mean the Bond Sale Agreement and any other comparable written commitment of the Local Issuer to sell local school bonds to the Authority. "Dissemination Agent" shall mean the Local Issuer, acting in its capacity as Dissemination Agent hereunder, or any successor Dissemination Agent designated in writing by such Local Issuer and which has filed with such Local Issuer a written acceptance of such designation. "Filing Date" shall have the meaning given to such term in Section 3(a) hereof. F-1 "Fiscal Year" shall mean the twelve-month period at the end of which financial position and results of operations are determined. Currently, the Local Issuer's Fiscal Year begins July 1 and continues through June 30 of the next calendar year. "holder" shall mean, for purposes of this Disclosure Agreement, any person who is a record owner or beneficial owner of a Series 2002 A Bond. "Listed Events" shall mean any of the events listed in subsection 5(b)(5)(i)(C) of the Rule. "local school bonds" shall mean any of the Local School Bonds and any other bonds of the Local Issuer pledged as security for Bonds issued under the Authority's 1997 Resolution. "Material Obligated Person" (or "MOP") shall mean the Local Issuer if it has local school bonds outstanding in an aggregate principal amount that exceeds 10% of the aggregate principal amount of all outstanding Bonds of the Authority. "National Repository" shall mean any Nationally Recognized Municipal Securities Information Repository for purposes of the Rule. "Participating Underwriter" shall mean any of the original underwriters of the Authority's Series 2002 A Bonds required to comply with the Rule in connection with the offering of such Bonds. "Repository" shall mean each National Repository and each State Repository. "Rule" shall mean Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as the same may be amended from time to time. "State Repository" shall mean any public or private depository or entity designated by the State as a state depository for the purpose of the Rule. As of the date of this Agreement, there is no State Repository. SECTION 3. Provision of Annual Reports. (a) The Local Issuer shall, or shall cause the Dissemination Agent to, provide to each Repository an Annual Report which is consistent with the requirements of Section 4 of this Disclosure Agreement. Such Annual Report shall be filed on a date (the "Filing Date") that is not later than 12 months after the end of any Fiscal Year (commencing with its Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2002) as of the end of which such Local Issuer was a MOP, unless as of the Filing Date the Local Issuer is no longer a MOP.~ Not later than ten (10) days prior to the Filing The Authority will covenant in the Bond Sale Agreement to advise the Local Issuer within 60 days of the end of each Fiscal Year if such Local Issuer was a Material Obligated Person as of the end of such Fiscal Year. Upon written request, the Authority will also advise the Local Issuer as to its status as a MOP as of any other date. F-2 Date, the Local Issuer shall provide the Annual Report to the Dissemination Agent (if applicable) and shall provide copies to the Authority. In each case, the Annual Report (i) may be submitted as a single document or as separate documents comprising a package, (ii) may cross-reference other information as provided in Section 4 of this Disclosure Agreement and (iii) shall include the Local Issuer's audited financial statements prepared in accordance with applicable State law or, if audited financial statements are not available, such unaudited financial statements as may be required by the Rule. In any event, audited financial statements of such Local Issuer must he submitted, if and when available, together with or separately from the Annual Report. (b) If the Local Issuer is unable to provide an Annual Report to the Repositories by the date required in subsection (a), the Local Issuer shall send a notice to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and any State Repository in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 4. Content of Annual Reports. Except as otherwise agreed, any Annual Report required to be filed hereunder shall contain or incorporate by reference, at a minimum, annual financial information relating to the Local Issuer, including operating data, updating such information relating to the Local Issuer as shall have been included or cross-referenced in the final Official Statement of the Authority describing the Authority's Series 2002 A Bonds or (ii) if there is no such information described in clause (i), updating such information relating to the Local Issuer as shall have been included or cross-referenced in any comparable disclosure document of the Local Issuer relating to its tax-supported obligations or (iii) if there is no such information described in clause (i) or (ii) above, initially setting forth and then updating the information referred to in Exhibit B as it relates to the Local Issuer, all with a view toward assisting Participating Underwriters in complying with the Rule. Any or all of such information may be incorporated by reference from other documents, including official statements of securities issues with respect to which the Local Issuer is an "obligated person" (within the meaning of the Rule), which have been filed with each of the Repositories or the Securities and Exchange Commission. If the document incorporated by reference is a final official statement, it must be available from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. The Local Issuer shall clearly identify each such other document so incorporated by reference. SECTION 5. Reporting of Listed Events, Whenever the Local Issuer is a Material Obligated Person required to file Annual Reports pursuant to Section 3(a) hereof and obtains knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event, and if such Local Issuer has determined that knowledge of the occurrence of a Listed Event with respect to its local school bonds would be material, such Local Issuer shall promptly file a notice of such occurrence with each National Repository or the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and each State Repository, if any, with a copy to the Authority. F-3 SECTION 6. Termination of Reporting Obligation. The Local Issuer's obligations under this Disclosure Agreement shall terminate upon the earlier to occur of the legal defeasance or final retirement of all the Local School Bonds. SECTION 7. Dissemination Agent. The Local Issuer may, from time to time, appoint or engage a Dissemination Agent.to assist it in carrying out its obligations under this Disclosure Agreement and may discharge any such Agent, with or without appointing a successor Dissemination Agent. The Local Issuer shall advise the Authority of any such appointment or discharge. If at any time there is not any other designated Dissemination Agent, the Local Issuer shall be the Dissemination Agent. [The initial Dissemination Agent shall be .] SECTION 8. Amendment. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Disclosure Agreement, the Local Issuer may amend this Disclosure Agreement, if such amendment has been approved in writing by the Authority and is supported by an opinion of independent counsel, acceptable to the Authority, with expertise in federal securities laws, to the effect that such amendment is permitted or required by the Rule. SECTION 9. Additional Information. Nothing in this Disclosure Agreement shall be deemed to prevent the Local Issuer from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Disclosure Agreement or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event, in addition to that which is required by this Disclosure Agreement. If the Local Issuer chooses to include any information in any Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event, in addition to that which is specifically required by this Disclosure Agreement, such Local Issuer shall have no obligation under this Agreement to update such information or include it in any future Annual Report or notice of occurrence of a Listed Event. SECTION 10. Default. Any person referred to in Section 11 (other than the Local Issuer) may take such action as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the Local Issuer to file its Annual Report or to give notice of a Listed Event. The Authority may, and the holders of not less than a majority in aggregate principal amount of Bonds outstanding may, take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to challenge the adequacy of any information provided pursuant to this Disclosure Agreement, or to enforce any other obligation of the Local Issuer hereunder. A default under this Disclosure Agreement shall not be deemed an event of default under the applicable resolution or bonds of the Local Issuer, and the sole remedy under this Disclosure Agreement in the event of any failure of the Local Issuer to comply herewith shall be an action to compel performance. Nothing in this provision shall be deemed to restrict the rights or remedies of any holder pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, or other applicable laws. SECTION 11. Beneficiaries. This Disclosure Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of the Authority, the Local Issuer, the Participating Underwriters, and holders from time to time of the Authority's'Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. F-4 SECTION 12. Counterparts. This Disclosure Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. Date: [LOCAL ISSUER] By. F-5 NOTICE OF FAlLURE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORT [AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS] EXHIBIT A Re: VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY SCHOOL FINANCING BONDS (1997 Resolution) SERIES 2002 A CUSIP Numbers. Dated: November 1, 2002 Name of Local Issuer NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the [Local Issuer] has not provided an Annual Report as required by Section 3(a) of the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, which was entered into in connection with the above-named bonds issued pursuant to that certain Series Resolution adopted on March 18, 2002 by the Board of Commissioners of the Virginia Public School Authority, the proceeds of which were used to purchase $ [School Bonds] of the [Local Issuer]. [The Local Issuer anticipates that the Annual Report will be filed by .] The Local Issuer is a material "obligated person" within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, with respect to the above- named bonds of the Authority. Dated: [LOCAL ISSUER] By F-6 EXHIBIT B CONTENT OF ANNUAL REPORT Description of the Local Issuer. A description o£ the Local Issuer including a summary of its form of government, budgetary processes and its management and officers. Debt. A description of the terms of the Local Issuer's outstanding tax-supported and other debt including a historical summary of outstanding tax-supported debt; a summary of authorized but unissued tax-supported debt; a summary of legal debt margin; a summary of overlapping debt; and a summary of annual debt service on outstanding tax-supported debt as of the end of the preceding fiscal year. The Annual Report should also include (to the extent not shown in the latest audited financial statements) a description of contingent obligations as well as pension plans administered by the Local Issuer and any unfunded pension liabilities. Financial Data. Financial information respecting the Local Issuer including a description of revenues and expenditures for its major funds and a summary of its tax policy, structure and collections as of the end of the preceding fiscal year. Capital Improvement Plan. A summary of the Local Issuer's capital improvement plan. Demographic, Economic and Supplemental Information. A summary of the Local Issuer's demographic and economic characteristics such as population, income, employment, and public school enrollment and infrastructure data as of the end of the preceding fiscal year. The Annual Report should also include a description of material litigation pending against the Local Issuer. F-7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902'-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 September 5, 2002 09-16-02A08:48 RCVD David Wyant 4686 Garth Road Crozet, VA 22932 RE: SP-2001-046 Snow's Rental Units; Tax Map 90, Parcel 35 LETTER OF CORRECT/ON Dear Mr. Wyant: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 3, 2002, by a vote ofT:O, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of stored items shall be limited to 8' in the front row of storage areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back row. 2. Eight foot (8') high solid wood fencing of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used for the north and south perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that ccnnect storage yards in the front row, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the back row. 3. Chain link fence shall not be visible from the EC. 4. Landscaping of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used to soften the appearance of the development and to integrate the site. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on September 11, 2002. The Board meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning & Community Development VWC/jcf /_ '" Cc: V,l~lla Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of' Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 September 5, 2002 David Wyant 4686 Garth Road Crozet, VA 22932 RE: SP-2001-046 Snow's Rental Units; Tax Map 90, Parcel 35 Dear Mr. Wyant: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 3, 2002, by a vote of 6:1, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The height of stored items shall be limited to 8' in the front row of storage areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back row. 2. Eight foot (8') high solid wood fencing of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used for the north and south perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that connect storage yards in the front row, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the back row. 3. Chain link fence shall not be visible from the EC. 4. Landscaping of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used to soften the appearance of the development and to integrate the site. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on September 11, 2002. The Board meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne Cil~berg - ~ Director of Planning & Comr~nity De~pment VWC/jcf 09-05-02P12:32 RCVD Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Yadira Amarante September 3, 2002 September 11, 2002 SP 01-046 Snow's Rental Units Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to utilize this property for outdoor storage and display on approximately 8 acres. It is anticipated that the site would be used by contractors who would store bulky materials such as pipe, wire, vehicles and other materials outside in accord with a concurrent site plan as shown in Attachment A. Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow outdoor storage, display, and/or sales serving or associated with permitted uses, any portion of which would be visible from an Entrance Corridor street in a Light Industrial zoning district. This petition is requested for parcels described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 35. The property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the east side of Avon Street Extended 300 feet north of Stoney Creek Drive. The property is zoned LI (Light Industrial) and EC (Entrance Corridor). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4, (See Attachment B) Character of the Area: The east side of Avon Street Extended is developed with a variety of industrial type uses. The Snow's nursery is located adjacent and to the north of the site under review. The parcel north of the nursery was approved, for the same use requested here, in 1999. Residential development, Mill Creek South, is located on the west side of Avon Street Extended opposite the site under review. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and with Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Planning and Zonine History: The parcel has no planning or zoning history. It is currently being used for stoclcpiles mulch, fertilizer, etc. for the nursery operation. Comprehensive Plan: Requests for special use permits in the Development Areas are typically assessed for conformity with the Land Use Plan and the Open Space Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4. The proposed use is consistent with an Industrial Service designation which includes uses such as warehousing, light industry, research, heavy industrial uses. The Open Space Plan delineates a small buffer strip along the frontage of this property to protect the Entrance Corridor and surrounding residential areas from possible industrial-type adverse affects such as noise, dust, and glare. The existing buffer strip consists mainly of pine trees which will be removed and replaced by a landscaped buffer area consisting of large, medium and small shade and screening trees. Engineerine Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering Department is recommending approval of the special use permit since most of their concerns can be addressed during the site plan review process. Zoning Considerations: Zoning has commented that the contractors' office and equipment storage yard are allowed by right in the LI district. This special use permit is only for the outdoor storage and display visible from Avon Street, an Entrance Corridor. ARB Considerations: The ARB is the reviewing body for this type of special use permit and has expressed no objections to the use. They are recommending a number conditions of approval of intended to minimize the visual effect on the Entrance Corridor. Similarly they have approved the preliminary site plan with conditions for additional landscaping and screening, (Attachment C). STAFF COMMENT: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? It is anticipated that the proposed use will have no negative impact on adjacent property due to the requirements of the ARB. A site plan will be required to be approved prior to the applicant making use of this special use permit. The site plan review procedure will help to insure that the adjacent properties are not substantially impacted. With approval of this special use permit, the site plan will be approved administratively. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The potential impact of the proposed use on the character of the district has been addressed by the ARB. The ARB has recommended approval subject to conditions, (see Attachment C). With the conditions recommended by the ARB the character of the district will not be changed. Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the EC district. Based on the recommendation of the ARB, this use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the EC District. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Contractors office and equipment storage yard is a use permitted by right in the underlying LI district. The use will not restrict permitted uses on this or adjacent property. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? No regulations in Section 5.0 apply specifically to this use. 2 Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? Compliance with the recommendations of the ARB and approval of a site plan will protect the public health safety and general welfare. SUMMARY: This use is by special use permit due to the use of outdoor storage and display within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This use is permitted by right in the underlying LI district. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed this request for its impact on the Avon Street Entrance Corridor. The action, which is included as Attachment C, expressed no objection to the proposed use. It is staffs opinion that with the ARB's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, this use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of SP-01-046 with the following conditions: 1. The height of stored items shall be limited to 8' in the front row of storage areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back row. 2. Eight foot (8') high solid wood fencing of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used for the north and south perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that connect storage yards in the front row, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the back row. 3. Chain hnk fence shall not be visible from the EC. 4. Landscaping of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used to soften the appearance of the development and to integrate the site. ATTACHMENTS: A - Preliminary Site Plan B - Vicinity Map C - ARB action Letter dated 5/28/02 --- "' A¢~ 'l \ " \ X 5, % \ /", __ ATTACHMENT A . q ~w u~e~e~ m ~ · '" ':..: ::t.z.:'::~;~ '. ~:':k?': 5' ,' :&' : ~ ;' ' .'R:..'4:' .':L::(:::'::. ';f::.:' Y ' ':~ ~ ~ '"" ~:~ ~ · ' ~ . ~ ... '. ~ ~ .... '...~,..:.: ' ~ ~ ~ ,.:.:,'.~:; .'. : ~;. ..,.~ .. :~.,' , , · ,... ' ' . · = . · . . ,.:/v~:;,: ~-'~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ": ::'""' L "~ ~ j ~ ~ b~ ~% . ~ x~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~-~es.~' ' ~ , - ¢ ~ ¢ , .- '~ ........ v ~ ~ - ' ' - ,~ ~ , t25' P~E ~TH ~S% ................. WITH STRIPPED TAPE~ = ~ N ST. RT. 742 ( AVON STREET EXTSNDED)-__%-% !. ..... 400' TO STONEY C~EEK DRIVE v~ ~s~ mo.w. / ~ / / ''0~E~ ~ ~"~*~ .... I ........ ~ = ~o=~ ,~ , STORAGE T~ MAP 90 PARCEL 35 ZONED: LI T~0 Zo~e ~S~S P~O~ AS ~V c0~e ~ F0~ US~ oF ~S 1885 AVON STREET EXTENDED ............... , ~O U,~ *= ~m~, ~ ~.0~ :,=~,l ; YARD SCOTTSVI~E MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT A~EMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA / ~' ~ s~- SCA~ },~ o9/o~ i ---- J )'WI tl/30/0t[ ............................................................................... ATTACHMENT A TING ....... ~ ~05 DETAIL N.T,S. ~ ~.~,,~ TURN LANE DETAIL N.T.S. FENCE DETAIL N T S ' : ~ .... ' "~ .... SNOW'S ~ · SITE ..... ~ ........ ',~ ......... · .....P ~ LAN ........ ' STORAGE TAX MAP 90 P~CEL a5 ZONED: LI ..... ~ .......... ~ ...... YArD SCOTTSVI~E MAGISTERIAL DISTBICT ~ -s~,,, ALBEMARLE COUNt, VIRGINIA '" , P'w~ li/ao/Oil /"k / ATTACHMENT A , ~ 545 ~ ~ ~4o ~ ss5 ~ ~ ~'~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~L TREES AND GR~H~T0 BE PRESER~D I~ a~aa oF TH~ LOT EXISTING TREEE & GROWTH ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EXCEPT T0 MODIFY THE~IMENT BASIN, IF a~aum~o. ~ ~ ~4o ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~31 40' 4~'~ i15.oo' ~ ~ST1NG TREES & GROWTH ~ '~ TREE LIRE ~ ~ ~ ~. ./ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ 545 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 550 _. ,:: NTS NTS // SNOW'S SITE PLAN STORAGE T~ ~gP ~0 PARCEL aS ZONED: LI YARD ~sss AVON STREET EXTENDED SCOTTSVILLE ~AGISTERIAL DISTRICT ALBEM~ COUNTY, VIRGINIA ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ,,~ u/3o/oq I _) ......... ,' \. '-....,/ / *. F~ ~.A~CIL I TY t . ..,, .JOC, ,' .:]' N SP - 2001- 46 SNOW'S RENTAL UNITS 1 INCH = 600 FEET PREPARED BY: OFFICE OF GEOGRAPPi~C DATA SERVIES (GDS) THIS MAP IS FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY (NOVEMBER 2, 2000) ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296- 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 May 28, 2002 DaVid Wyant 4686 Garth Road Crozet, VA 22932 RE: ARB-2002-31 Snow's Offices and Storage Yard; Tax Map 90, Parcel 35 Dear Mr. Wyant: The Albemarle County Architectural Monday, May 20, 2002. The Board following conditions: Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on expressed no objection to' the special use permit subject to the 1. The height of stored items shall be limited to 8' in the front row of storage areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back row. 2. Eight (8') high solid wood fencing of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used for the north and south perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that connect storage yards in the front row, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the back row. 3. Chain link fence shall not be visible ~rom the EC. 4. Landscaping of a design that meets ARB approval shall be usee to soften the appearance of the development and to integrate the site. The board unanimously approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the site plan, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: Remove noie #3 ("fence will be chain link with brown diagonal slats") ~rom the site plan sheet. 2. Remove all references to the freestanding signs from the plans. Submit a separate application at a later date. No signs will be included in approvals for this site plan. 3. Revise the proposed topography in the parking area of the southern storage yard (front row). If a retaining wall will be required, show it and provide details on height, materials, appearance, etc. 4. Regarding the landscaping: a) Create a more informal, evergreen planting in the southwest corner of the site. This planting should tie in with the proposed 4-season buffer and the Leyland Cypress. Plants should be placed in a mixed mass planting rather than planted in rows (single or staggered) of single species. b) The planting at the front of the site should provide continuous screening. Add plants accordingly. c) Show on the plan the Dwarf Burford Holly that is included in the landscape key. d) Revise the spacing of the white pines in the vicinity of the rip rap trench on the south side of the site to 15t on center. e) Revise the spacing of the schip laurel to 5' on center. 5. The fence shall be stained to match the building. 6. There shall be no points on the fer~ce rail. ATTACHMENT C Page 2 May 28,2002 Please provide revised drawings or other information addressing each of these conditions at your earliest convenience. Include a memo indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes '~n the memo also. When staff's review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Design Planner MM/jcf cc: v~adira Amarante 9 Albemarle County Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 Albemarle County Planning Commission September 3, 2002 Minutes SP-01-046 Snows Rental units Mr. LoewenStein returned to the meeting at 6:35 p.m. He stated that the next item on the agenda was SP-01-046, Snows Rental Units. In Ms. Amarante's absence, Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff report as follows: SP 01-046 Snow's Rental Units ~,pplicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to utilize this property for outdoor storage and display on approximately 8 acres. It is anticipated that the site would be used by contractors who would store bulky materials such as pipe, wire, vehicles and other materials outside in accord with a concurrent site plan as shown in Attachment A. Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, .in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow outdoor storage, display, and/or sales serving or associated with permitted uses, any portion of which would be visible from an Entrance Corridor street in a Light Industrial zoning district. This petition is requested for parcels described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 35. The property is located in the Scottsvilte Magisterial Distdct on the east side of Avon Street Extended 300 feet north of Stoney Creek Ddve. The property is zoned LI (Light Industrial) and EC (Entrance Corridor). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4, (See Attachment B) Character of the Area: The east side of Avon Street Extended is developed with a vadety of industrial type uses. The Snow's nursery is located adjacent and to the north of the site under review. The parcel north of the nursery was approved, for the same use requested here, in 1999. Residential development, Mill Creek South, is located on the west side of Avon Street Extended opposite the site under review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and with Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Planninfl and Zoning History: The parcel has no planning or zoning history. It is currently being used for stockpiles mulch, fertilizer, etc. for the nursery operation. Comprehensive Plan: Requests for special use permits in the Development Areas are typically assessed for conformity with the Land Use Plan and the Open Space Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4. The proposed use is consistent with an Industrial Service designation that includes uses such as warehousing, light industry, research, heavy industrial uses. The Open Space Plan delineates a small buffer strip along the frontage of this property to protect the Entrance Corridor and surrounding residential areas frOm possible industrial-type adverse affects such as noise, dust, and glare. The existing buffer strip consists mainly of pine trees which will be removed and replaced by a landscaped buffer area consisting of large, medium and small shade and screening trees. En~lineeHn_cl Analysis: The County'S Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering Department is recommending approval of the special use permit since most of their concerns can be addressed during the site plan review process. Zoninfl Considerations: Zoning has commented that the contractors' office and equipment storage yard are allowed by right in the LI district. This special use permit is only for the outdoor storage and display visible from Avon Street, an Entrance Corridor. ARB Considerations: The ARB is the reviewing body for this type of special use permit and has expressed no objections to the use. They are recommending a number conditions of approval of intended to minimize the visual effect on the Entrance Corridor. Similarly they have approved the preliminary site plan with conditions for file://l:'~DEPT~BOS\Agenda%20FilesL20020911 \SP01046Snows932002PCmimhtm 9/6/02 Albemarle County Planning CommisSion Page 2 of 3 additional landscaping and screening, (Attachment C). STAFF COMMENT: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: Will the .use be of substantial detriment :to adjacent property? It is anticipated that the proposed use will have no negative impact on adjacent property due to the requirements of the ARB. A site plan will be required to be approved prior to the applicant making use of this special use permit. The site plan review procedure will help to insure that the adjacent pro. perties are not substantially impacted. With approval of this special use permit, the site plan will be approved administratively. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? :l'he potential im pact of the proposed use on the character of the district has been addressed by the ARB. The ARB has recommended approval subject to conditions, (see Attachment C). With the conditions recommended by the ARB the character of the district will not be changed. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the EC district. Based on the recommendation of the ARB, this use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the EC District. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? Contractors office and equipment storage yard is a use permitted by right in the underlying LI district. The use will not restrict permitted uses on this or adjacent property. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? No regulations in Section 5.0 apply specifically to this use. Will the rpUblic health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? ~om pliance with the recommendations of the ARB and approval of a site plan will protect the public health safety and general Welfare. SUMMARY: This use is by special use permit due to the use of outdoor storage and display within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This use is permitted by right in the underlying LI district. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed this request for its impaCt on the Avon Street Entrance Corridor, The action, which is included as Attachment C, expressed no objection to the proposed use. It is staffs opinion that with the ARB's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, this use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION ~taff recommends approval of SP-01-046 with the following conditions: 1. The height of stored items shall be limited to 8' in the front row of storage areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back row. 2. Eight foot (8') high solid wood fencing of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used )~or the north and south perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that connect stoPage yards in the front row, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the back row. 3. Chain link fence shall not be visible from the EC. 4. Landscaping of a design that meets ARB apj}roval shall be used to soften the appearance o,f ~he development and to integrate the site. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any quesfigr~s. There being none, he opened the public heating and asked fite://I:XDEPT~B OSLAgenda%20Files\2002091 I\SP01046Snows932002PCmin,htm 9/6/02 Albemarle County~Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 that the applicant come forward if he wished to make a statement. Mr. Wayne Snow stated that he did not have anything in particular to discuss except to say that right now the property was basically an eyesore with the mulch piles, piles of gravel and stone that they use for storage, He noted that the adjacent owners had asked them to do something about it even though they are grandfathered, He noted that he told them that he would and they went ahead and put some White Pines in. He stated that when they came up with this idea they felt it should help a lot to improve the visual entrance and the useofthe property. Right now when it says rental units, but it.does not give any clues as to how they propose to use the property. He stated that they look for it to be up scale and not a lot of trashy waste. He st~t~, that he currently has a small pharmaCeutical company interested. He noted that he did not know how they operate, but that they do ship their product out to different places around the country. He noted that also an electrical contractor was interested in a unit such as this, Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak to this matter tonight. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Commission for action. Mr. Rieley moved for approval of SP-01-046, Snows Rental Units, subject to the following conditions recommended by staff: 1. The height of stored items shall be limited to 8' in the front row of storage areas (the row closest to Avon Street) and in the southernmost storage area in the back row. 2. Eight foot (8') high solid wood fencing of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used for the north and south perimeters of the front row of storage yards, the portions of fencing that connect storage yards in the front few, and the southern side of the southernmost storage yard in the back row. 3. Chain link fence shall not be visible from the EC. 4. Landscaping of a design that meets ARB approval shall be used to soften the appearance of the development and to integrate the site, Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). Mr. Loewenstein stated that SP-02-46 was approved and will go to the Board of Supervisors on September 11~. Return to Agenda Return to Action Letter Return to Staff Report fite://I:X~DEPT23OSLa~genda%20Files\2002091 I\SP01046Snows932002PCmin.htm 9/6/02 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE · Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker ~lack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller September 13, 2002 Mr. Bill Brent Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Brent: At its September 11, 2002 meeting, the Board of SuPervisors adopted an to amend Chapter 16, Weastewater and Water Systems of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia by Amending Article V, Conservation of Water. I have enclosed the original signed ordinance. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Laurel A. Bentley, CMC Senior Deputy Clerk Attachment PHnfed on recycled paper ORDINANCE NO. 02-160g)(1) AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 16, WASTEWATER AND WATER SYSTEMS OF THE. CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY AMENDING ARTICLE V, CONSERVATION OF WATER. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 16 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Wastewater and Water Systems, is amended as follows: By Amending: Article V. Sec. 16-500. Conservation of Water. Conservation of Water During Emergencies. Chapter 16. Wastewater and Water Systems Articl~ V. Conservation of Water Sec. 16-500. Conservation of Water During Emergencies. A. Should the board of supervisors, at any time, declare there to be an emergency in the county arising wholly or substantially out of a shortage of water supply, the Albemarle County Service Authority (the "authority") and its Executive Director (the "executive director") are hereby authorized during continuation of the water emergency to order the restriction or prohibition of any or all uses of the water supply, including but not limited to: 1. Watering of outside shrubbery, trees, lawn, grass, plants, home vegetable gardens, or any other vegetation, exc~ept from a watering can or other container not exceeding three (3) gallons in capacity. This limitation shall not apply to commercial greenhouses or nursery stocks, which may be watered in the minimum amount required to preserve plant life before 7:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. 2. Washing of automobiles, trucks, trailers, or any other type of mobile equipment, except in licensed commercial vehicle wash facilities. 3. Washing of sidewalks, streets, driveways, parking lots, service station aprons, exteriors of homes or apartments, commercial or industrial buildings or any other outdoor surface, except where mandated by federal, state, or local law. 4. The operation of any ornamental fountain or other structure making a similar use of water. 5. The filling of swimming or wading pools requiring more than five gallons of water, or the refilling of swimming or wading pools which were drained after the effective date of the declaration of emergency, except that pools may be filled to a level of two feet below normal, or water may be added to bring the level to two feet below normal, or as necessary to protect the structure from hydrostatic damage, for pools constructed or contracted for on or before the effective date of the declaration of emergency restrictions. 6. The use of water from fire hydrants for any purpose other than fire suppression, unless otherwise approved by the executive director. 7. The serving of drinking water in restaurants, except upon request. 8. The operation of any water-cooled comfort air conditioning that does not have water conserving equipment in operation. 9. Any additional water use restriction deemed necessary. The above restrictions, or any of them, shall become effective upon their being printed in any newspaper of general circulation in the county, or broadcast upon any radio or television station serving the county. B. Upon implementation of subsection A, above, the authority shall establish an appeals procedure to review customer applications for exemptions from the provisions of subsections A on a case by case basis and, if warranted, to make equitable adjustments to such provisions. The authority shall also be empowered to establish regulations governing the granting of temporary exemptions applicable to all or some of the uses of the water supply set forth in subsection A. The authority shall, in deciding applications, balance economic and other hardships to the applicant resulting from the imposition of water use restrictions or allocations against the individual and cumulative impacts to the water supply resulting from the granting of exemptions. C. Should measures taken pursuant to subsection A of this section prove insufficient to preserve sufficient supplies of water for the ckizens of the county, the authority and its executive director are hereby further authorized to impose temporary rate increases or surcharges on the consumption of 2 water, to restrict or discontinue the supply of water to any industrial or commercial activity which uses water beyond the sanitary and drinking needs of its employees and invitees, to declare a moratorium on new water connections to buildings issued a building permit after the date of declaration of emergency, and to restrict water use to basic human needs only. D. Any person violating any provision of this section, or any order of the executive director of the authority issued pursuant to the authority granted hereunder shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. In addition, the executive director of the authority is hereby authorized to terminate the water service, for the duration of the emergency, to any person convicted of such violation. E. In addition to the penalties set forth in subsection D, above, the authority and the executive director may impose penalty charges on any person violating any provision of this section. Such penalty charges shall be in an amount determined by the authority and shall be imposed on the violator's next water bill. If such penalty charges are not paid when due, the executive director of the authority is authorized to terminate the water service and take any additional measures authorized by law. Persons who have been assessed a penalty charge shall have the right to challenge the assessed charge by providing a written notice to the executive director of the authority within ten (10) days of the date of the assessment of the penalty charge. The executive director or his designee shall determine whether the penalty charge was properly assessed and notify the complaining person in writing of his determination. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the executive director may appeal that decision to a committee of the authoritv's board by filing an appeal in writing within five (5) days of notice of the executive director's decision. The executive director or his designee, or upon appeal, the committee of the authority's board, may waive the penalty charge if it is determined that the violation occurred due to no fault of the person. F. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the authority and its executive director from rescinding any orders issued thereunder when the conditions creating the need for such orders have abated. G. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the authority and its executive director from exercising any and all powers and taking any and all actions authorized by the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Virginia Code §§ 15.2-5100, et al. H. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately, being adopted under emergency procedures pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-1427, and shall remain in effect not longer than sixty days unless readopted in conformity with the applicable provisions of the Virginia Code. (Ord. 00-16(1), 8-2-00; Ord. 02-16(E)(1), 9-11-02) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-924. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on September 11, 2002. Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier x Mr. Martin x Mr. Perkins x Mr. Rooker x Ms. Thomas x Aye Nay x Clerk, Board of County Supervisor¢' FROM :STAB LOWER SCHOOL FA× NO. :43497905B8 Sep. 11 2002 11:53AM P1 Currituck Farm P. O. Box 207 Earlysville, VA 22936 September I 1, 2002 Members of the Board of Supervisors 40i Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Dear Neighbors, On this day of remembrance, I am so happy to hear a rumor that you might again be considering the question of a mountain top protection ordinance. I sincerely hope that this is tree and wish to add my support. One has only to look to the east fi.om several vantage points in. town to see the new Giant food store on Pantops. It has overtaken our eastern skyline. What would our view contain if our western ridges in.eluded condos and resorts perched on top? The loss of view may be inconsequential compared to thc erosion and loss of habitat, which would result after construction on those fragile spaces. As I commented at a recent MPO meeting, I have seen t-ran.sit heaven and it is Portlmld, Oregon. In addition to having great foresight and easy access to early transportation funds, Portlandcrs planned their zoning and building regulations to keep this city of over 600,000 people "low rise." The concept they protected was to keep the view of the mountains to the east and norfl~ visible for as many people and different neighborhoods in the city as possible. This is a noble aim and has been a magnificent success for their happiness and tbr their tourism industry. Hopefully we can save this kind of future for ourselves. I am one of many citizens of Albemarle who will support a return to this issue, and hopefully this time we will pass an ordinance. I am sony I cannot be with you at tonight's meeting. Sincerely, Ann H. Mallek DISTRIBUTED TO 09-~ 1-02P02:~2 RCVD BO8 On ,Laurie Bentley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ella Carey Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:49 PM Board of Supervisors members Laurie Bentley FW: Mountain Top Protection Ord. Ella Washington-Carey, CMC Clerk, Board of Supervisors Phone: (804) 296-5843 Fax: (804) 244-7003 ---Original Message--- From: keswickstable, s~webtv.net [mailto:keswickstables~ebtv.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:29 PM To: Ella Carey Subject: Mountain Top PrOtection Ord. Please urge the Board of Supervisors to put the Mountain Top Protection Ordinance back on their agenda. It is absolutely imperative that we protect the beauty of Albemarle County. Peggy Augustus DISTRfBUTED TO BOS Laurie Bentley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ella Carey Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:14 PM Board of Supervisors members Bob Tucker, Larry Davis; Laurie Bentley FW: NOTE FOR THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Ella Washington-Carey, CMC Clerk, Board of Supervisors Phone: (804) 296-5843 Fax: (804) 244-7003 Original Message---- From: Wilcox [mailto:wilcox@ivpc. net] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:26 PM To: Ella Carey Subject: NOTE FOR THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS I was delighted to learn that a possible topic of discussion at the Board's work session on Wednesday is whether to resurrect for renewed public debate and consideration the Mountain Top Protection Ordinance that met such stiff opposition several years ago. I urge you to do so. There was and is broad support for mountain top protection, notwithstanding its very vocal opposition. The 1998 ordinance would have applied to my property in Ivy and I was pleased to be included. By no means are alt hillside and ridgeline property owners opposed to such an idea. This is an important element in our CoUnty pattern of scenic protections, and I hOpe you will give it another chance for full public debate and vote. Thank you very much. Harvey J.~ Wilcox Turner Mountain Road P.O.Box 338 Ivy, VA 22945 DISTRIBUTED TO BOS on La,urie Bentley ,, From: Sent: To: Subject: Ella Carey Tuesday, September 10, 2002 11:27 AM Laude Bentley FW: Mountain Top Protection Ordinance To go with other paperwork on this item Ella Washington-Carey, CMC Clerk, Board of Supervisors Phone: (804) 296-5843 Fax: (804) 244-7003 ---Original Message---- From: Cliff Fox Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:43 AM To: Dennis Rooker; chvlpress@aol.com; Tracey Hopper; wdr8j@virginia.edu; Pete Craddock; William Finley; dbowerman@albemarle,org; Sally Thomas; Charles Martin; Lindsay Dorder; Walter Perkins; Ella Carey Subject: Mountain Top Protection Ordinance Dear Board of Supervisors: Given all of our attempts to protect the beauty and rural character of Albemarle I think it is worth taking another look at the Mountain Top Ordinance. There should be a strategy that allows owners methods to maintain the value of these areas. While this is a very old tune, and perhaps a tired idea, I think this is an area where the possibility of TDR's, and enabling legislation, should be considered. Where enivironmental and/or scenic conditions exist, there is some logic in allowing those development dghts to be transferred? This whole Mountain Top Protection issue is cOmplex and not easily solved; thank you for your consideration regarding this matter. Respectfully submitted, Cliff FoX DISTRIBUTED TO BOS 013 Page 1 of I Laurie Bentley From: Ella Carey Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 2:01 PM To: Board of Supervisors members Cc: Bob TuCker; Larry Davis; Laurie Bentley Subject: FW: support mountaintop protection Ella Washington-Carqy, CMC Clerk, Board of Supervisors Phone: (804) 296-5843 Fax: (804) 244-7003 ..... Original Message ..... From: 3ohn Murphy [mailto:johnm@cstone.net] Sent: Monday~ September 09, 2002 I:15 PM To.' Ella Carey Subject: support mountaintop protection ordinance Dear Ms. Carey, Please relay this message to each member of the Board of Supervisors: As an Albemarle County mountain property owner, I support the concept of the mountaintop protection ordinance, and and hope that the proposal will be returned to the public forum and ultimately apprOved by the Board of Supervisors. Sincerely, John Murphy BOS on 9/10/02 Laur, ie Bentley From: Sent: To: Subject: Ella Carey Monday, September 09, 2002 11:56 AM Laurie Bentley FW: groundwater recharge and mountain overlays FYt to go with September 11 board folder Ella Washing~wn-Car~, CMC Clerk, Board of Supervisors Phone: (804) 296-5843 Fax: (804) 244-7003 Sent: To:, Cc: Subjec~ ---Original IVlessage--- Bob Tucker Monday, Sapbamber 09, 2002 9:13 AM Charles Martin; David Bowerman; Dennis Rocker; UndSay Dorrier; Sally Thomas; Walter Perkins Mad(Graham; Wayne Cilimberg; Ella Carey; Larry Davis FW: groundwater recharge and mountain overlays Everyone: FYI please see the attachment below regarding mountain overlay and groundwater recharge from Engineering and Public Works for your meeting on September 11th. If you have trouble opening the attachment please let Ella know and we'll fax you a copy. THANKS, BOB ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 401 MCINTIRE ROAD CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-4579 VOICE: 434.296,5841 FAX: 434.296.5800 EMAIL: BTUCKER@ALBEMARLE.ORG WEBSITE: http:I/www, atbemade,org mountainous tamain -groundwat,.. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Engineering & Public Works MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Tucker, County Executive Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development FROM: Mark B. Graham, Director of Engineering and Public Works DATE: 06 September 2002 Groundwater Recharge Areas I understand several Board members were interested in information regarding groundwater recharge areas as related to mountainsides and other areas. Also, they were interested in knowing whether these areas would be mapped in the near furore. Engineering and Public Works did evaluate groundwater recharge areas with the initial study performed for the Mechums River watershed, but dropped this as a specific map product for the County-wide groundwater study currently under way. The reason this map was dropped is that an examination of the groundwater recharge factors showed that whether an area was forested tended to be the single most important criteria for groundwater recharge. Somewhat oversimplified, this map tends to reflect whether an area was wooded at the time the map was prepared rather than whether the soils, terrain, or other factors were suitable for recharge. Mountainous terrain actually tended to score more poorly for groundwater recharge due to the slopes which accelerate runoff, but the fact these areas tend to be densely wooded more than offset the terrain consideration. That is why large areas of mountainside are shown as groundwater recharge areas in the Mechums River study. I will add that the water quality and quantity impacts of denuding mountainous terrain are very serious concerns for this office. Mountain slopes tend to be very sensitive and grading these areas can require years or decades to recover some of the natural resources. One look at the slopes on 1-64 going towards Afion Will illustrate this point. Practically all of the formulas used for measuring erosion impacts have the slope and length of slope as major factors. Mountains, almost by definition, have long and steep slopes. In removing the woods on this mountainous terrain, we are increasing the runoffand that transIates into significantly higher rates of erosion than in other areas. Higher rates of erosion translated into lower protection of natural resources. I hope this addresses this issue. I'll plan on attending the September l0th Board meeting in ease there are other questions concerning groundwater recharge or engineering issues on mountain slopes. Now that I've addressed the question, I'll use this opportunity to provide my own editorial. Whether the issue is groundwater recharge, protection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, maintaining biodiversity, or preserving our natural resources, the answers all seem to keep pointing to the importance of maintaining large areas in forests. Interestingly, in looking at the runoff impacts on rural lands, I find the water quality and quantity impacts in going fi'om forest to pasture are more significant that in converting that same land fi.om pasture to 2-5 acre subdivision lots. In this regard, t believe the article on sedimentation in this week's C'ville missed the mark. The issue isn't simply impervious cover, such as roads and houses, as they stated, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Worksessions: ZTA 98-05, ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay District ordinance and related amendments; and CPA 98-01 Mountains SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksessions on Mountain Overlay District- ordinance zoning text amendment and zoning map amendment and Comprehensive Plan amendment on Mountains STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Scala; Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: August 5, 1998 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: No ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: / The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the proposed Mountain Oveday District (MOD) ordinance amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendment on June 10, 1998, continued discussion on June 17, 1998, and deferred action on all three amendments until August 5, 1998. The Board directed staff to present a proposal to them (which the Board approved on July 1, 1998), regarding how to proceed with the review of the MOD ordinance. (July 1, 1998 staff report is ATTACHMENT A.) The Mountain Committee met twice in July to discuss public hearing comments and the content of the latest version of the ordinance. (The Committee's comments are ATTACHMENT B.) SUMMARY: At the August 5 Worksession, staff will review the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the latest version of the ordinance, and will discuss the Mountain committee's recommendations regarding the ordinance. Using the proposed zoning maps, staff will also present several examples of how the ordinance would affect specific mountain properties. All three amendments may be adopted at the August 5 meeting~ or at a later scheduled meeting. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Mountains section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies mountain resources, as well as why and how they should be protected. Although mountains have been discussed in all previous Comprehensive Plans since 1971, this section is a more detailed discussion, based on the Mountain Committee's 1995 Mountain Protection Plan. The Mountains section is an integral part of Chapter Two, the Natural Environment section of the Plan, which the Planning Commission has most recently been working on. The importance of adopting the CPA, whether alone or along with the proposed MOD ordinance and maps, is because the Comprehensive Plan is used to guide all land use decisions. The 1992 Open Space Plan defines mountain areas, which have been used in discussions of cellular tower locations, rural preservation developments, and other development proposals in mountain areas. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will provide additional data and guidance assembled by the Committee to inform future land use decisions. Mountain Overlay District ordinance The Mountain Committee's suggestions indicate continued support for the most recent version of the Mountain Overlay Distdct ordinance. They do recommend that more time is needed to educate the public about the ordinance. Additional public information sessions regarding the proposed ordinance as suggested by the Mountain Committee are desirable but Will require staff time and resources which will affect other projects. Staff AGENbA TITLE: Worksessions: ZTA 98-05, ZMA 98-10 Mountain OverlaY DiStrict ordinance and related amendments; and CPA 98- 01 Mountains August 5, 1998 Page 2 recommends (1) notification of the public through a newspaper ad or direct mailings (direct mailings require more staff time but may be more effective); (2) one-on-one meetings between staff and property owners to be scheduled in the County Office Building rather than several County locations; and (3) maintaining current · information on the mountain ordinance on the internet site. Zoning Map Amendment The zoning maps may be adopted without the ordinance. Adoption of the maps alone without the full MOD ordinance would implement the MOD soil erosion provisions in the Water Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of CPA 98-01. Staff recommends that the Board decide which specific provisions of the ordinance it may wish to pursue, notify the public of its intent, and schedule additional meetings in Se ptember for further discussion. 98.146 ATTACHMENTS: A - July 1, 1998 staff report B - Mou ntain Committee Recommendation C - CPA 98-01 D - ZTA 98-05 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT A AG EN DA TITLE: Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Ordinance Review Process SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:. Staff recommendation regarding how to proceed with review of the proposed MOD ordinance. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Scala, Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: July 1, 1998 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS:' REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes The Board of Supen/isors at ils meelJng on June 17, 1998 deferred action on the proposed Mountain Overlay Distdct (MOD) ordinance and related amendments (ZTA 98-05, ZMA 98-10, CPA 98-01) until August 5. The Board directed that staff and the mountain committee present the Board with a proposal for how to proceed with the review of the MoD ordinance by the July 1 Board meeting. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared a recOmmendation to guide the Board's review of the proposed ordinance. Staff intends to contact committee members prior to July 1 for further suggestions. RECOMMENDATION~ July 1, 1998f- Presentation/discussion of review process - Board to reach a consensus on how to proceed with review of the ordinance. Due to lime constraints, staffwill discuss its recommendation on process informally with the mountain committee members pdor to July 1, and will provide any additional comments from the committee at this meeting. Mid-July- Convene the mountain committee for discussion regarding (1) public comments received at the public hearings and (2) the content of the latest Version of the ordinance. Au{jUst $, 1998 - Hold a work session to discuss mountain protection components. Issues will be discussed in the following order: Corn prehensive Pla n Amendment - Staff will review the amendment, and explain what it aCcomplishes, and why it is important to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment either alone, or along with the proposed ordinance and maps. Board members may wish to submit questions to staff in advance of this work session. The Board may choose to take action on the CPA on this date. Zoning Text Amendment - staff will explain the latest version of the MOD ordinance, p~ovision by provision. Many changes were made or pro posed to the ordinance in a short period of time. The Purpose of this session is to fully infOrm Board members about the current proposal. Zoning Map Amendment- Staff will present specific examples of mountain land owners' properties, and how the proposed ordinance would affect them. Following this work session, the options for the Board are: Adopt the CPA. The CPA must be adopted prior to the other amendments. Adopt the CPA and the ZMA (zoning maps). Adoption of the maps alone without the full MOD ordinance would implement the MOD soil erosion provisions in the Water Ordinance. Adopt the CPA, ZMA and ZTA (MOD ordinance) with or without modifica~on. All three amendments may be adopted at the meeting on August 5, or at a later scheduled meeting. ATTACHMENT A If more discussion is desired on the ZTA (MOD ordinance) or ZMA (Zoning maps), then staff recommends that the Board: Decide which specific provisions of the ordinance it may wish to pursue, Notify the public of its intent (see below), and Schedule an additional meeting(s) in September for further discussion and/or input from specific individuals. KEEPING THE PUBLIC INFORMED: A concem expressed at the public hearings was that the public wanted accurate information. Staff recommends the following ways we intend to inform the public: The most recent draft of the MOD ordinance and the June 17 staff report with questions and comments raised at the public heating will be displayed on the Internet immediately. Following each Board action, the information on the Internet will be updated. Following the August 5 meeting, additional public notification may consist of: An information ad in the newspaper, which outlines the latest draft of the proposed ordinance; A second open house in the County Office Building for the purpose of making the proposed zoning maps and planner~ readily available to the public; Notification by individual letters if necessary. Staffwill continue to be available in the Department of Planning and Community Development to answer questions and to provide copies of maps and information. 98.114 ATTACH M ENTS: A- CPA 98~01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment B- Mountain Protection Plan C-ZTA 98-05 MOD ordinance, June 16, 1998 (A-l) draft D -June 16, 1998 staff report ATTACHMENT B MOUNTAIN COMMITTEE'S RECOM2VIENDATIONS - JULY, 1998 The Mountain Committee made the following comments and suggestions regarding issues raised at the public hearings and the content of the latest version of the Mountain Overlay District ordinance: 1. Exempting Cambell's Mountain (Lewis Mountain) becaUse of its urban location and R-1 zoning. The Committee was not in favor of exempting mountain properties located in Development Areas. (One member preferred downzoning mountains to RA.) The Committee felt that the same concerns for environmental, health, safety, aesthetic and access issues held in the Development Areas, and that Development Areas must be included for consistency. In the case of Lewis Mountain, the property is already largely restricted by critical slopes. "Grandfathering" existing small lots under 21 acres that straddle the ridge area, to permit building On the ridge by right. The Committee was not in'favor of this proposal. They prefer requiring a special use permit to allow building on a ridge, rather than allowing it by right when other buildings sites exist which are not on a ridge. With the limited number of such lots, exempting them would seem to be tailoring the ordinance to benefit a few landowners, while making its requirements apply to a large group of landowners. 3. Establishing with more specificity criteria for applicants seeking a special use permit to build in the ridge area. The Committee was in favor of establishing specific criteria. However, they were unsure how aesthetic criteria could be included, and suggested that staff and a designated Committee member consult with the County Attorney prior to developing criteria. Seeking modification of state enabling legislation to permit regulation of aesthetics. The danger in this approach is that the ordinance would appear to be tied to only aesthetic concerns, when, in fact, it is largely based on environmental, health, safety, and welfare aspects which are addressed in existing zoning enabling legislation. It is recommended that the ordinance be adopted, and then reviewed in 18 months. If aesthetic-based enabling legislation is added in the interim, the ordinance can be adjusted accordingly. Look at Mountain Committee minutes for discussion of deficiencies in current regulations and why we need a mountain ordinance to bridge those gaps. The Committee'directed Staff to make those minutes available to the Board. Staff reviewed the ATTACHMENT B Committee minutes of July 17, 1995, and found the following references to deficiencies in current regulations: 25% slopes - The Board of Supervisors think that we are protecting the mountains through critical slopes, but it apPears they may not be checked until the footers are inspected. - Need better verification of 25% slopes; most are not accurately depicted. - Difficulty in determining if house is being built on 25% slopes. Subdivision plats - No building site is shown on the final plat. - Family divisions are being abused - should raise the one year limit. Private driveways are not regulated. Need to tighten up exempt lots at least in mountains. Exemption allows lots greater than 5 acres to be created without proof of drain_field location. Easier to develop in Rural Areas than in Development Areas. Soil erosion - single family homes are exempt up to 10,000 sq. ft; a signed agreement is required but not an erosion, control plan. - Driveways are the problem: concentrated water flowing down long, steep slopes. Site plan is needed but cannot be required - Lighting issues. - Tree cutting. - Skylighting of houses against the horizon. - Color of house, but not style. Other - Lack ofwater on some mountains - prove there is water on a lot before it is approved. - Telecommunication towers are a problem in terms of mountaintop protection. - Excessive development rights. Take steps to make the mountain ordinance proposal less threatening to the public. The Board should decide what the ordinance will look like before taking it back to the public. Property owners should be notified by mail of additional "open house" meetings to allow more time for property owners to learn how the proposed ordinance will affect their properties. Staff or Committee members should hold one-on-one sessions with property owners, possibly in several locations in the County. Constructed embankments - requiring stabilized side slopes on driveways and building pads throughout the County. The Committee originally proposed driveway regulations to apply just in the mountain areas, for safety and soil erosion prevention reasons. The constructed embankments section currently addresses only soil erosion, County-wide. ATTACHMENT B Questions have been raised whether this section requires undesireable grading and clearing, and whether a minimum requirement for a driveway gradient should have been included. Although Engineering department has stated that 2:1 slopes are akeady required as a matter of Engineering Department policy for soil erosion conrol purposes, this section would make the requirement a zoning ordinance regulation. The Committee preferred that the constructed embankments section be included along with the mountain ordinance to ensure that new slopes are not created unless they can be stabilized. Making it a regulation rather than a policy will ensure that it is applied consistently. One member preferred that it be addressed separately, possibly in the Subdivision Ordinance. Closing of inadvertent loophole of creating lots in mountain area (MOD). The ordinance currently requires that a building site be located outside the MOD if one exists, but does not prohibit creating a lot within the MOD. The Committee said it is important to close this loophole. It was a result of a succession of different drafts and was never left out on purpose. The Committee recommended that the small development right lots must be. created outside the MOD if building sites exist there. If building sites do not exist, or have been used up outside the MOD, then the small lots may be divided inside the MOD. Combining Section 30.8.4 c. and d. (allowing lots by special use permit on a ridge). Section 30.8.4. c. should be more clearly worded that development rights are not guaranteed unless the intent of the ordinance can be fully met. This section might be interpreted that a special use permit would be granted merely because a development right would otherwise be lost; a special permit should be granted only if it is shown that the building site also meets the intent of the ordinance. Section 30.8.4 c. is so broad that 30.8.4 d. is not needed. Is there a reason to keep it in there? ATTACHMENT C PROPOSED COMPREH-ENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER TWO, THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OPEN SPACE RESOURCES JUNE 10, 1998 CPA 98-01 MOUNTAINS INTRODUCTION Albemarle's mountains have been and continue to be a source of income, natural resources, scenic beauty, and recreation. Mountains may be said to define much of the character of Albemarle County. Directly and indirectly, the County's mountainous areas provide economic benefits to the local community in employment, tourism, and agricultural and forest products. Beyond the economic benefits, the mountains provide important natural functions, such as provision of clean water, contributions to healthy air, and habitats for many of the County's plant and animal species. And, to many residents, the blue backdrop of the mountains gives Albemarle County in large measure its "sense of place," that quality which makes this area a special place to its residents and visitors and one which is consistently ranked among the top places to live in the United States. Mountains are a source of concern when inappropriate development creates unWanted impacts to environmental and aesthetic resources and public safety. Environmental concerns include soil erosion, surface water runoff, septic system contamination, fragmentation of forests, and destruction of habitat. Aesthetic, concerns center on disruption of the relatively pristine Wooded character which provides a' sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness, and the resultant impact on tourism. Public safety concerns include difficult access for emergency vehicles, and the potential for debris flows. OBJECTIVE: Recognize the value of Albemarle's mountains, including protecting water quality and drinking water reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values, tourism, and the economic impact of these resources. Pursue additional protection measures to protect these resources and to promote public safety in these areas of exceptional critical slopes and higher elevations. Strategies: Develop a mountain protection district to protect and promote mountain resources and to protect pubHc safety in mountain areas. Develop an educational brochure with recommended design standards for mountain areas to encourage sensitive site design which is considerate of safety, environmental and aesthetic concerns. Encourage voluntary measures which protect mountain resouPces, such as conservation easements, agricultural and forestal districts, and use value taxatiota Encourage the use of the Rural Preservation Development (RPD) option to protect mountain resources. Utilize an acquisition program, such as purchase of development rights (PDR), to prdtect mountains. When enabling legislation allows, evaluate a density transfer or transfer of development rights(TDR) program to protect mountains. Develop County planning tools and educational materials that address hazard avoidance with regard to areas that are prone to debris flows. In conjunction with apprOpriate resource agencies, develop a debris flow hazard map for Albemarle County. ATTACHMENT C ALBEMARLE'S MOUNTAIN RESOURCES Albemarle's mountains are unique areas of the County which are distinguished by the natural resources and physical conditions listed belOw. Such resources and conditions are found in other areas of the County, but only in the mountains do they occur in such combination, as extensively, and to such extremes. Critical Slopes: Mountain areas are unique and distinct from the lower elevations of the County that a)so may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances than critical.slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper. In Albemarle's mountains continuous critical slopes in excess of 50% can be found for distances of up to one mile, and in some cases, longer. Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountain areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contaminatio.n are amplified in these areas. Soil: Forest cover is the optimum land use for minimizing soil erosion and maximizing water quality. Soils on steep slopes are typically more credible than in other areas. Inaccessibility and isolated location of development sites in mountain areas necessitate longer driveways and' access roads over more highly credible soils than in other areas of the County. Such driveways and access roads may disturb many times more land area than a dwelling itself. Improper attention to soils may result in accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, ground or surface water pollution, landslides, flooding, drainage problems, failed septic systems, construction problems, and unproductive agricultural and forestal lands. Water Quality and Quantity: Sedimentation of Albemarle's public drinking water resePvoirs in addition to increased demand may necessitate the building of an additional raw water source prior to 2015 to meet the average daily demands of the Urban Service Area. The South Rivanna Reservoir loses 13 million gallons of storage Capacity annually as a result of sedimentation. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir, by contrast, loses no appreciable capacity. Protection of water resources is of vital importance to Albemarle County and Virginia in general. Albemarle's location adjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides both the advantage of clean headwaters, and a responsibility to protect them. (See Water Resources, page -) Forest and Agricultural Resources: The mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover, with the remaining acreage in orchards and pasture. A viable forest industry is an essential economic incentive to maintenance of forest land. The principal threat to the County's mountain forests and farms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residential land use. The County's Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee report states, "Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of the forest industry in Albemarle County...As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." The Growth Management Goal of Albemarle County places highest priority on the protection of agricultural and forestry resources in the Rural Area. The Mountain areas are zoned almost exclusively Rural Areas. The Rabun-Myersville-Catoctin soil association on the Southwest-Carters Mountain chain is among the most productive hardwood forest soils in the Commonwealth. Debris Flows: Some types of landslides take place very gradually, and while they can cause property damage, the landslide can be tracked and mitigation planned. Others types of landslides move very rapidly and have to potential to inflict massive damage to natural landscapes and human settlements. Debris flows (also called mudslides, mudflows, or debris avalanches) are a particular type of fast-moving landslide that occurs during periods of intense rainfall. 2 ATTACHMENT C The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) describes debris flows as follows: Fast moving flows of mud and rock, called debris flows, are among' the most destructive types of landslides and are responsible for substantial damage and loss of life worldwide...Their consistency ranges fro/n watery mud to stiff, rocky mud similar to wet concrete and dense enough to carry boulders, trees, and cars .... Debris flows are triggered predominantly by adding moisture to soil on steep slopes faster than the moisture can drain away leading to a temporary condition of perched, water in the soil .... They commonly start on steep hillsides as shallow soil slides that liquefy, accelerate to speeds of 35 miles per hour or more, and flow down hill slopes and channels until slowing on more gentle ground. The following debris flow events have occurred in recent times in our particular region of the Appalachian Mountain chain: · In 1969, during Hurricane Camille, Nelson County (and a small part of Southern Albemarle) experienced debris flows that caused 150 deaths and $100 million in property damage. · In November, 1985, widespread debris flows in Virginia and West Virginia in the Potomac and Cheat River basins led to 70 deaths and $1.3 billion in property damage. · In June, 1995, a storm cell in Madison County caused by 30 inches of rain during a 16 hour period resulted in debris flows, that caused one fatality and $100 million in property damage. During the same period as the Madison County events, at least 100 debris flows occurred along the North Fork Moorman's River in Albemarle County and Shenandoah National Park. It is estimated that at least 11.5 inches of rain fell during a two-hour period. Were it not for the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, which acted as a trap for the debris flow flood surge from the North Fork Moorman's, eight or more downstream residences would almost certainly have been destroyed. In addition, scientists have documented 51 historical debris flow events between 1844 and 1985 in the Appalachians. Studies of debris flow sites have revealed old, prehistoric debris flow~ beneath deposits of modern debris flows, meaning that, in geologic time~ debris flows are recurring events in the Appalachian region. While a debris flow may not return to the exact same geographic area (e.g:, the North Fork Moorman's) for thousands of years, it is known that conditions promoting debris flows occur somewhere in the Appalachian region every two to three years~ and, accordingly, somewhere along Virginia' s Blue Ridge front approximately once every decade. Compared to other areas of the country, Central Virginia is not known as a region that is particularly vulnerable to natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, etc.). However, floods and debris flows are certainly natural hazards that are known to occur in Central Virginia, and for which the population should be prepared. With regard to typical flooding, the County maintains a flood plain program in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program, and regulates activities within flood plains through the zoning ordinance. Debris flows, however, are not typical floods, and until the events of June, 1995 brought these realities to our door step, the community has remained largely unaware of this natural hazard. It is important for the County and the residents of mountain-side communities to realize that there are measures that can be taken to avoid debris flow hazards and to be prepared. The U.S. Geological Survey recommends the following general measures: ATTACHMENT C Become familiar with the land around you. Learn whether debris flows have occurred in your area by contacting local officials, State geological surveys or departments of natural resources, and university departments of geology. Slopes where debris flows have occurred in the past are likely to experience them in the future. Support your local government in efforts to develop and enforce land-use and building ordinances that regulate construction in areas susceptible to landslides and debris flows. Buildings should be located away from steep slopes, streams and rivers, intermittent-stream channels, and the mouths of mountain channels. Watch the patterns of storm-water drainage on slopes near your home, and note especially the places where runoff water converges, increasing flow over soil-covered slopes. Watch the hillsides around your home for any signs of land movement, such as small landslides or debris flows or progressively tilting trees. 4. Contact your local authorities to learn about the emergency response and evacuation plans for your area, and develop your own emergency plans for your family and business. In accordance with these recommendations, the County should enhance its planning and informational resources to direct and advise that development avoid debris flow-prone areas. In this regard, recent USGS studies have identified the following predictive criteria for potential furore debris flows: · Storms with very intensive rainfall -- the 1995 storms had periods with rainfall intensities of 5 inches per hour that were sustained'for 2 hours or more. · Areas underlain by prehistoric debris flow deposits. · Areas underlain by slopes greater than 26 degrees (67 percent slope). · Natural drainage channels and streams that originate on slopes greater than 26 degrees and delineated with a buffer 10 feet in elevation above the channel. The USGS has used these and other criteria to produce a hazard map for Madison County based on studies of the 1995 debris flows. Albemarle County should work with the appropriate agencies to produce a similar map for the County's mountain areas. The information in this section was derived from the following reports: Debris-Flow Hazards in Areas Affected by the June 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Mo~:gan, B.A., Wieczorek, R.H., Campbell, and Gori, P.L., USGS Open-File Report 97-438, 1997. Debris Flows and Landslides Resulting From The June 27, 1995, Storm on the North Fork of the Moorman's River, Shenandoah National Park Virginia, Morgan, B.A. and Wieczorek, G.F., USGS Open- File Report.96-503, August, 1996. Debris-Flow Hazards in the Blue Ridge of Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet- 159-96, 1996. Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the June 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Wieczorek, G.F., Gori, P.L., Campbell, R.H., and Morgan, B.A., USGS Open-File Report 95-822, October, 1995. 4 ATTACHMENT C Plant and Animal Habitat.: Losses of native biological diversity (plant and animal species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity) are a significant concern. Those declines are caused by several factors, most importantly, fragmentation of habitat - the dividing of large areas into smaller parcels, and the resulting disruption of forest cover. (See Biodiversity, page -, and Forest Fragmentation, page -). Scenic Resources and their Economic Impact: Albemarle County is well known for its scenic character. Maintaining this character is important to current residents and to prospective'residents and tourists. A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important to County residents. An issue that is of importance to visual impact is the horizon. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area. (See Scenic Resources, page -). Dark Sky: Excessive outdoor lighting in the urban and developed areas of the County is increasing. The natural resource of dark night sky and its importance to the University's Observatories has been insufficiently considered in planning processes in the County. Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more than a billion dollars a year (International Dark Sky Association, 1990). Poorly designed outdoor lighting creates glare, which compromises safety especially for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City, and degrades the quality of the built environment. (See The Dark Sky, page -). Tourism: T~urism and associated economic benefits related to the mountains continue to grow in the County. Travel sales in 1994 accounted for 17% of total sales or $109,139,211 in the County. Each year approximately 1,985,000 people visit Shenandoah National Park. Direct economic benefit to counties adjoining the Park is approximately 85 million dollars per year. In 1990 there were 550,183 visitors to Monticello, which translates into over 159 million dollars in.revenue to the C6unty. HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTION Mountain resource protection efforts began in 1971 with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan, which delineated the mountains as "conservation areas." The 1977 Comprehensive Plan contained a map of conservation areas which included hilltops, major ridge lines, and slopes over 15%. Hillside development standards were proposed on slopes exceeding 15%, which included road construction, grading and drainage standards. In 1980 a new zoning ordinance was adopted, which included the Rural Areas zoning district to restrict rural development rights, and the critical slopes provisions. All the mountains except two small peaks in the Urban Development Area are currently zoned Rural Areas. The critical slopes provisions require a "building site," a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%. The regulation is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development ofthoge areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as critical slopes. The 1980 critical slopes provisions did not address driveway construction. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan included environmental standards to protect and conserve natural resources. The Plan states: "Clearing, grading, building, cropping or overgrazing of critical slopes can result in extensive erosion and landslides or sloughing of soil and rock; excessive storm water runoff; increased siltation and sedimentation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic' resource and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent." 5 ATTACHMENT C The 1989 Comprehensive Plan states that, '%latural, scenic, and historic resources are essential to Albemarle County's rural character, economic vitality and quality of life." The Plan notes the strong relationship between these environmental resources, water supply protection, and agricultural/forestry preservation, which are the major reasons for protecting the Rural Area. The Plan also notes the interdependency of environmental resources, "For example, the maintenance of forested areas protects surface water quality, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, groundwater recharge areas, and air quality." The 1989 Plan also discusses design standards for scenic resources. "In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area." The Plan recommended adoption of an Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, to identify and to develop protection measures for significant natural and scenic resources, including critical slopes, important wildlife habitat, wooded areas of environmental importance, and hilltops and ridges. The Open Space Plan, adopted July 15, 1992 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, identifies Mountains as one of four major open space systems which are the most important open space lands to protect. It lists resources associated with mountains: critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitats for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters. The Open Space Plan defines mountains by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. (See attached list of Mountains.) The Open Space Plan includes the following strategy which was also added to the Comprehensive Plan action agenda: "Develop a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated with mountains, and to further protect their environmental characteristics." The Open Space Plan states: "Visual concerns related to mountains center on disruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness. Extensive critical slopes, combined with high elevations, result in a prominent display of changes to the mountain landscape. Activities which alter the continuity of the ridgeline or result in excessive tree removal should be discouraged. Bnvironmental concerns include (1) the loss to development of a unique and beneficial natural environment and (2) disruption of the natural balance of soils, slope and vegetation. While detailed studies have not been' undertaken at this time, it is anticipated that due to the location of generally unspoiled and extensive forests, together with a relatively small human and domestic animal population, mountains may be areas of comparative significance as "natural areas" and "wildlife habitats." Mountains also provide areas of unique soils suitable for orchards and vineyards between elevations of 800 - 1800 feet. Environmental benefits of undisturbed forests often associated with mountains include increased groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and climate modulation. In addition, concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountainous regions due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Issues related to soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas." MOUNTAIN PROTECTION PLAN The Mountain Protection Committee consisting of 12 citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors met from June, 1995 through July, 1996. They prepared a report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1, 1996, which was presented to the Board of Supervisors September 4, 1996. The plan contained three major recommendations: (1) Delineation of a Mountain Overlay District describing the area containing the critical resources of the mountains, and recommendations which ensure health and safety of the mountain area's residents and which control possible degradation of County's resources from activities within the District. The intent of an ordinance would be to protect resources characteristic of or dependent on the ATTACH'M~NT C mountainous regions of the County: public safety, water quality, public drinking water reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values associated with the mountains and their economic impact, and tourism. Specific recommendations for a Mountain Overlay District addressed soil erosion plans, driveway requirements, protection of ridge areas, and building and subdivision requirements to use building sites located outside the mountain district if they are available. (2) Recommendation of County-wide application: Lighting Ordinance to require shielding of all new exterior lighting fixtures. The Committee also recommended a future study to determine maximum foot candles for categories of uses, and recommended that the Board of Supervisors ask power companies to cease promoting unshielded and inefficient lighting. (See The Dark Sky, page-) (3) Additional Planning Tools: Though the Mountain Protection Committee's task was to develop recommendations for the protection of the mountains of the County, the Committee noted that planning for the protection of discrete areas or resources, such as the mountains, the urban areas, or the watershed must be integrated with a more systematic approach which provides for the protection of resource systems, such as drinking water, economic viability of urban areas, or transportation networks. The mountainous areas of Albemarle County are not only prominent physical features possessing critical natural resources, but they are also important parts of many human and natural systems in the County and region. Like other County human, cultural and natural resources, they therefore require consideration as components of larger planning issues. Some of the County's land use regulations developed with a compartmentalized approach to land planning may have unintended consequences for protection of its natural resources and other comprehensive planning goals of the County. Rural residential parcels (5-20 ac.) too small to farm or timber or serve as habitat, increase sprawl, put unintended pressure on mountain and agricultural lands. Areas of the County possessing critical resources may require different types of land use restrictions to protect the resource. Segregated land uses may unintentionally increase housing costs, and increase pressure on transportation systems and on agricultural lands in the path of proposed new roads. Discussion of natural resource protection may not be broad enough in scope to suggest effective or equitable solutions. The Committee recommended several planning tools to achieve a more systematic approach to resource protection for Albemarle County: The Mountain Protection Plan is attached as an appendix to this Comprehensive Plan. DESIGN STANDARDS · Minimize clearing. Consider the impact of your clearing on others' vistas of the unspoiled natural terrain. Locate driveways to minimize grading, length, and impact on critical slopes and trees. Driveways should disturb no more than 65 feet in cross section. Consider "peek holes" in the vegetation and winter views rather than clearing for year-round views. Maintain the natural tree canopy. Replant the forest edge with local indigenous species to discourage growth of undesirable edge vegetation (poison ivy, greenbriars). · Locate the house and structures ro make them unobtrusive in the landscape. Do not build structures taller than th'e natural tree canopy. Do not locate the house and structures where they will be "skylighted" against the horizon. Do not alter the continuity of the ridgeline. ATTACHMENT C · Locate the house and structures to make them safe. Dc not build in swales or other areas where a debris flow may occur. Minimize disturbances to critical slopes. Locate the septic system down slope of the dwelling to make use of the clearing as a fire buffer area. · Design private driveways to permit fire and rescue emergency vehicle access: Longitudinal gradient should not exceed 16%. Minimum allowable radius for horiz6ntal Curvature should be 40 feet. Avoid north slopes where snow and ice may accumulate. · Design the house and structures to blend in with the terrain surrounding the building site. Choose non-reflective colors and' materials. Choose earth tone colors rather than stark white. Choose underground rather than overhead electrical service. Choose local indigenous landscape materials. Consider an alternative to growing a lawn. · Consider your impact on plant and animal habitat. Maintain the natural landscape in large contiguous areas. Clearing for a dwelling creates edge habitat. Be prepared to coexist with deer and other wildlife. · Locate and shield exterior lighting to minimize its obtrusiveness on neighbors and the natural environment. Use full cutoff fixtures which are aimed downward. Use lighting which is adequate but not excessive for the proposed use. MOUNTAIN CONTOUR LIST ATTACHMENT C The following named mountains and other unnamed mountains are included on the Concept Map (USGS quad sheet locations are noted if names are duplicated). They are defined by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. 700 Foot Contour Stillhouse Mountain Lewis Mountain Mt. Jefferson Southwest Mountains Trevillian Wolfpit Long Sugarloaf Lonesome Broadhead Hightop (Keswick Quad) Walnut Dowell Peters- Goodlow Carters Mountain Monticello Patterson Round Top (Alberene Quad) 800 Foot Contour Piney Mountain (Earlysville Quad) Dudley Mountain Britts Piney (Alberene Quad) Ragged Mountains Round Top (Charlottesville West Quad) Bear Den (Charlottesville West Quad) Newcomb Woodson GibsOn (Alberene Quad) Gillams Mountain TUrner Mountain 900 Foot Contour Buck Mountain Taylor's Mountain Martin's Mountain (Crozet Quad) Sprouse Mountain Israel Mountain Tom Mountain Gay Mountain Ammonett Mountain Cook Mountain Persimmon Mountain Fan Mountain Mount Oliver Appleberry Mountain Shiloh Mountain Brush Mountain Yellow Mountain Harris Mountain Green Mountain (Free Union Quad) Cherry Mountain 1000 Foot Contour Boaz Mountains Walnut Top Mountain Heard Mountain Mill Mountain Chalk Mountain Castle Rock Mountain Moses Mountain Massies Mountain Long Arm Mountain High Top (covesville Quad) Burnt Mountain Sharp Top Eunis Mountain Round Top Mountain (Waynesboro East Quad) Turks Mountain Lick Mountain Currant Pigeon Top Mountain 1200 Foot Contour Blue Ridge Mountains Scott Bear Den (Waynesboro East Quad) Calf Bucks Elbow Little Yellow Beaver Creek Middle Pasture Fence Pinestand Cedar Big Flat Little Flat Loft County Line Mountain Fox Mountain Gibson (Brown's Cove Quad) Martins (Brown's Cove Quad) High Top (Brown's Cove 'Quad) ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained by adding sections 4.2.01, 30.8, 30.8.1, 30.8.2, 30.8.3, 30.8.3.1, 30.8.3.2, 30.8.4, 30.8.5, 30.8.6 and 30.8.7 and by amending sections 3.0, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.6.2 and 31.2.2, as follows: By Adding New: Sec. 4.2.01. Sec. 30.8. Sec. 30..8.1. Sec. 30.8.2. Sec. 30.8.3. Sec. 30.8.3.1. Sec. 30.8.3.2. Sec. 30.8.4. Sec. 30.8.5. Sec. 30.8.6. Sec. 30.8.7. By Amending: Sec. 3.0, Sec. 4.2.1. Sec. 4.2.3. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Sec. 4.2.6.2. Article II. Basic Regulations Constructed embankments. Article II1. District Regulations Mountain overlay district. Intent. Establishment of district boundaries. Permitted uses. By right, By special use permit. Location of lots and building sites. Exempt structures. Relief from district requirements. Grandfathered dwelling units. Article I. General Provisions Definitions. Article I!. Basic Regulations Building site required. Location of structures and improvements,. Slope restrictions. Exception for existing lots. ATTACHMENT D Sec. 31.2.2. Article IV. Procedure Building permits. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Section 3.0. Definitions. Building site: A contiguous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either United States Geologic Survey topographic survey maps (based on a contour interval of twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, and which does not include land which is: (i) under Water; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) within the one hundred (100) .year flood plain of a natural stream identified on a site plan or on a plat; or (iv) within a stream buffer identified in the water protection ordinance except as otherwise allowed therein. Land disturbing activity: Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land. Peak: The uppermost elevation of a land formation within the mountain overlay district which rises at least twenty (20) feet above the surrounding land, as delineated on United States Geologic Survey topographic survey maps. Ridge area: All land within one hundred (100) vertical feet of, and including, the ridgeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, as identified on the map - approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Rid.qeline: The uppermost line created by connecting the peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, and from which land declines in elevation on at least two (2) sides, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. ATTACHME.~fT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Article I1. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.0. General Regulations. Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments. Each embankment constructed on a lot or parcel in order to establish a driveway, accessway, or building pad, which the county engineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of five (5) feet or greater~ shall be subject to the following: The constructed embankment shall not have a gradient which exceeds two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot' of vertical rise or fall (2:1)~ Notwithstanding subsection (a), during construction the county engineer may authorize a constructed embankment with a gradient exceeding two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1) if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that: (i) extenuating circumstances exist; and (ii) equal or greater water qualitY and land stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complying with subsection (a). For purposes of this subsection, "extenuating circumstances" shall mean such things as rock and other existing physical site features. Building size, location and other factors that are primarily the proprieta .ry interest of the owner are not, in and of themselves, justification for approval of a modification of the 2:1 gradient limitation. This determination may be made prior to construction in cases where the owner provides to the county engineer detailed site .evaluation data sufficient to enable the county engineer to make a decision. The owner shall submit to the county engineer all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county engineer shall identify, all land stabilization measures that must be installed as a condition of granting the authorization provided in this subsection; provided that, in areas of a lot or parcel which the county engineer determines to be predominantly rock, the county engineer may grant authorization without requiring land stabilization measures. This section 4.2.01 shall not apply to any constructed embankment established as part of a public improvement project of a state or federal agency. Sec. 4.2.1. Building site required. LI lid No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site. For purposes of ,,,~ ,~,,,, ~u,,~,,,u o,,~ ~,,~,, ,,,~,, ~ ~,,~,u~ ~,~- ~, ,~,,~ ,,, ~,~F~o ~, ,~= ,,,~,, phi ~vw,,,y-,~v= t~w percent ~ uuL=,,,,,, UI - 3 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) [20] '--" -- - -'-'---:---' by '~- ...... "' ' - ,.,~ ,~, superior accuracy, l~.~.J~.,II ~1,11~(~ C:~O IJlC~y U~ I~%.~O,L~*..i III LlJl~; IIt./~.)U IlCl/..C[ItJ UVI~I|Cly [.JIOLI I~,L WI V¥111bll I,~, located, .._4 ...... ,__. UI IU~=;I VVCtLCI ~ OIJl.,ll Cll~;Cl O,~ IliO~y L/I;~ IMb~L~U VVILIIlll LVVU IIUII~I~ ~U] II~ii~UIIL~I i~k ~1 Lll~ ~11~, hu,,u,~u year"--' -'-:- ' ....... ~':- ~-:-": ...... '-- hu,,u,~u uw ,,u,,~u,,~, ,~ u, ~,,~ e e of any tr[butar~ stream tu ~u~,, Such area oo may be ~--" ..... "-- ',,~ -- uuo,~,,,=~uu ,,o resource protection ,=,u,=o oR protection areas ~ap -~--'-~ -"~ ..... ' '- -~ ..... "~ ~ ~,~ .... , .......=~-~ '~-' --'~=-- ' ' -~-" ~- deemed ~1 I~11 ,l,,F~J, u ~ vv~L~, reSOUrCeS ~aRageF eXSFOiS8 of disoretiO~ aS ~ ,u, u, ,,, u ,~, Sec. 4.2.3. Location of structures and improvements. Except as otherwisepe,,,--:"--',,,L~, ......... ' '-,~ p,,ou,,,,, authorized by section 4.2.2 and section 4.2.6, the provisions of this section 4.2.3 shall apply to the location of any structure for which a permit is required under by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site de~4opment plan pursuarff~o required by section 32.0 of this ordinance- Chapter.. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Slope restrictions. No structur% or improvement,_ nor each land disturbing activity to establish such structure or improvement_~ sh~ll be located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, except as otherwise permitted under section 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.6.2 Exception for existing lots or parcels. Except as provided in sections 30.8.4.b.1 and 30.8.4.b.2 of this chapter,. A_any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; provided that section 4.2.3.2 shall apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall contain adequate land area in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent of for the location of such structure. For the purposes of this section a mobile home shall be deemed a single-family detached dwelling unit. 4 ATTACHMENT D Article III. Sec. 30.8. Mountain overlay district Sec. 30.8.1. Intent Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) District Regulations The mountain overlay district is intended to protect and promote those resources characteristic of, or dependent on, the mountainous regions of the county, and includes protecting water quality and public drinking water reservoir capacity, promoting soil conservation and the conservation of forest resources, plant habitat, animal habitat, and scenic values associated with the mountains of the county, protecting and promoting the economic impact of these resources and tourism, and promoting public safety, by, among other things, controlling land disturbing activities in mountain areas that can contribute to or be impacted by debris flows and providing that roads be designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of fire and emergency vehicles. In establishing the mountain overlay district, the board of supervisors finds that mountain areas are unique and distinct from the lower elevations of the county that also may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances than critical Slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper. It is the intent of the board of supervisors that the boundaries of the mountain overlay district encompass those mountainous areas of the county at and above the seven hundred (700), eight hundred (800), nine hundred (900), one thousand (1,000) or one thousand two hundred ('1,200) foot elevations, and that the applicable minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district shall depend on the location of the mountainous area in the county, as shown on the official zoning map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Sec. 30.8.2. Establishment of district boundaries. The boundaries of the mountain overlay district, the ridge areas, and the rid.qelines are identified on, and established by; the official zoning map approved by the board of supervisors and administered by the zoning administrator. Sec. 30.8.3. Permitted uses. Sec. 30.8.3.1. By right. The uses identified as being permitted by right in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted in 'the mountain overlay district by right. 5 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Sec, 30.8.3.2. By special use permit. The uses identified as being allowed by a special use permit in the underlying zoning district shall be allowed in the mountain overlay district only by a special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4. Sec. 30.8.4. Location of lots and building sites. a_.. Each lot or parcel created shall comply with the following: No lot or parcel shall be entirely within a ridge area. The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of a ridge area. The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of the mountain overlay district if a building site exists outside of the mountain overlay district~ Each existing lot or parcel which .is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district shall comply with the following: The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of the ridge area, unless: (i) the lot or parcel is entirely within the ddge area, or the lot or parcel is both within and without the ridge area but the only buildin.q site is within the ridge area; and (ii) the building site is for the first single family dwelling unit on the lot or parcel. The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of ihe mountain overlay district, unless the lot or parcel is entirely within the mountain overlay district, or the lot or parcel is both within and without the mountain overlay district but the only building site is within the mountain overlay district. Section 30.8.4.a. notwithstanding, a Jot may be permitted by special use permit to be created in whole or in part within a ridge area upon demonstration that: ('i) the location of the lot is required to utilize an existing development right; (ii) that no prior division of property under this section precluded the use of existing development rights from being utilized outside.of the ridge area; (iii) the building site of the proposed lot is consistent with the intent of this section 30.8; and (iv) the building site meets the criteria of section 31.2.4.1. 6 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Section 30.8.4.b. notwithstanding, the building site on the lot or parcel may be permitted by special use permit to be within the ridge area or mountain overlay diStrict upon demonstration that the building site would better meet the intent of this section 30.8 by being located within rather than outside of the ridge area or mountain overlay district and the building site meets the criteda of section 31.2.4:1. Sec. 30..8.5. Exempt structures. The following structures within the mountain overlay district shall be exempt from any requirement of sections 30.8.4 and 31.2.2.a of this chapter: An accessory, buildinq of less than five hundred (500) square feet of interior floor area, not includinq porches; A structure, which is not a building1 less than twenty feet in height; A structure used exclusively for production agricultural or forestal purposes; A tower used for the purpose of supporting one or more antennae for radio, tdlevision, microwave or wireless telecommunications. Sec. 30.8.6. Relief from district requirements. A lot or parcel, or any part thereof, shown on the map approved by the board of supervis~ors pursuant to section 30.8.2 to be within the mountain overlay district or the rid.qe area shall not be subject to the requirements of this section 30.8, section 31.2.2.a.2.a, or section 31.2.2.b.2, if the owner of the lot or parcel demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer that it is below the applicable minimum elevation or outside laf the ridge area, as provided herein. a_. In order to make such a demonstration, the owner shall submit to the county engineer a certificate from a licensed land surveyor that the lot or parcel, or part thereof, is below the applicable minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district as described in section 30.8.1, or outside of the ridge area. -Fhe certification shall be based upon datum which coincides with United States Geological Survey .1927 North American datum, with benchmark acceptable to the county engineer. 7 ATTACHME~ D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Sec. 30.8.7. Grandfathered dwellin~l units. The provisions of this section 30.8 shall not apply to any single family dwelling unit legally existing on June 10, 1998. Such dWelling units shall notbe deemed to be nonconforming dwelling units because of their inability to meet the requirements of thi-~ section 30.8. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2. Building permits. The zoning administrator shall review each application for a building permit to ensure that the building or structure proposed is in accordance "':'~' "-- vv,,,, .,~ terms complies with the requirements of this ordinance chapter. Each applicant shall submit the following information to the zoning administrator for review prior to issuance of a building permit: J--~:::3.~*..,,I ! ~2~.~J~.JII~..~;~.IIL ~lJ~l! ~/UVIU~:~ If no part of the land is within the mountain overlay district, a copy of the most recent plat of record of the land to be built upon unless no such plat exists, in which case the application shall provide a copy of the most recent deed description thereof. If the land is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: Evidence which establishes that the lOcation of the building site on the lot or parcel complies with sections 4.2 and 30.8.4 of this chapter. Evidence demonstrating such compliance shall be either: (i) a final plat approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance; or (ii) if the lot or parcel was created prior to the date of adoption of the subdivision ordinance, then a depiction on a boundary survey prepared by a professional engineer or land surveyor which shows the location of the building site on the lot or parcel; the boundary survey shall be accompanied by written verification signed by a professional engineer or land surveyor stating that the building site upon which the structure will be constructed Complies with all of the building site requirements of this chapter; and Evidence from the department of engineering and public works that an erosion and sediment control plan or an agreement in lieu of a plan has been approved, or that neither is required. ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Any other information which the zoning administrator may deem necessary for Consideration of the application may ~ IJ~;~ i ~:~ U I11;::~U. No permit to construct, reconstruct, enlarge, extend, expand or structurally alter a structure shall be issued: ,.,~, p~,,,,,, o,.,,.,, be ,oou~,~ f For any construction for which a site u~w,~,p,,,~,,~ plan is required to be approvedu.v~---"--,,,~ commlssion' ' in accordance with section 32.0 of this ordinance chapter, unless and until such the site plan _,~_,,,L,.,w .... been so is approved. Thereaffer~ any item · ..~1 I¢3. ll shown on suc,h the plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie to be in accordance 'vvit,h t,he terms compliance with the requirements of this ,~,u,, ,a, ,~.~ chapter; or 2_. For any construction on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district, unless and until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this chapter, and in particular sections 4.2.1,4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2 and 30.8.4, and the water protection ordinance. In determining such compliance, the zoning administrator shall consult with the department of planning and community development and the department of engineering and public works, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to whether such requirements of this chapter have been satisfied. The department of engineering and public works shall also advise the zoning administrator as to whether the requirements of the water protection ordinance have been satisfied. If the proposed building or use is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance chapter, a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the zoning administrator. Qne (1) copy of the drawing shall be returned to the applicant with the permit. I:\DEPTLATTORNEY\ORD. INANC\MTN 15PC.wpd COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlo~aesville, Virginia 22902-4596 8041296-5823 FAX 804/972-4035 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mary Joy Scala June 16, 1998 COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT AMENDMENTS RAISED AT THE JUNE 10, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The lates~ draft of the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) ordinance has more liberalized provisions than those originally recommended by the Mountain Committee, staff,' and the Planning Commission. However, the ordinance as proposed still allows a higher level of review in the mountain areas than is currently provided under existing regulations: The Board may wish to exercise the right to review the ordinance's implementation in eighteen months, and make changes as warranted. Staff notes the following changes to the June 8 draft which you previously received: (1) Staff recommends that Section 30.8.5 Private roads be deleted in its entirety based on Engineering's information that the current private roads regulhtions in the Subdivision Ordinance are more restrictive. (2) Section 30.8.4.c. is revised slightly to permit a lot by special use permit entirely in whole or in part within the Ridge Area .... This revision is suggested by the County Attorney and does not alter the intent but allows a lot to siraddle the Ridge Area for eXample if the ridge is small or narrow. (3) The definition of" building site" in Section 3.0 is clarified by the addition.of the words (based on 'contour interval twenty [20] feet). This change clarifies that twenty feet is the Uniform standard, even though the topo map available may show ten, twenty or forty foot contour intervals. (4) The County Engineer requests that part of Section 4.2.01 Constructed embankments be revised to replace "a vertical rise or fall of Wvo-~ feet" .with .... a vertical rise or fall of five (5) feet." This change provides that embankments smaller than five feet in height will not be subject to the regulation. (5) The Board may wish to consider deletion of Section 4.2.01. Constructed embankments, and to consider addressing driveway regulations separately at a later date. This section requires minimum 2:1 side slopes on driveways and building pads throughout the County. Although 2:1 slopes are currently required as a matter of Engineering Department policy, this section would make the requirement a zoning ordinance regulation. Driveway regulations were originally proposed for safety and soil erosion prevention reasons. This section addresses only soil erosion. Questions have been raised whether it requires additional undesirable grading and clearing, and whether a minimum requirement for a driveway gradient should have been included. The following comments and questions were raised at the public hearing. They are presented here to facilitate discussion of the proposed amendments. Public comments and questions are in bold italics. Staff's responseg are indented. 1. The Planning Commission's alterations were included to address public concerns, and make the ordinance supportable. The Planning Commission recommended thre~ major changes: (1) Delete the requirement for a special use permit for development right lots within the MOD to allow them by right (this meets objections that development rights were taken); (2) add a "grandfathering" clause for existing residences (this meets concerns that existing homes could not be added on to or rebuilt following a fire); and (3) the Board should consider a mechanism such as a special use permit to allow buildingon the Ridge Area when it can be shown that building there would cause less environmental degradation than building below the Ridge Area (this meets concerns that on s~me ridges the best place to build is actually on the ridge which may be relatively level, have an existing road, etc.). Other minor changes clarified but didn't change provisions. 2. The original ordinance (particularly requiring small lots by special permit and no building on the ridge) is preferable to the revised versions because it is stronger. Although the Planning Commission was concerned about the large number of development rights existing in the mountains, it said that perhaps this was not yet the time to address the issue of the number of development rights. Forestry and intensive agriculture should not be permitted The State Right to Farm law requires that agriculture and forestry be permitted by right in zoning districts included for such activities, so that counties may not prevent forestry as a land use. In Albemarle County, the Comprehensive Plan promotes and supports agriculture and forestry as preferred land uses in the Rural Area. 4. Lewis Mountain and other Development Area tracts should be excluded from the MOD because they are in a Development Arer~ Lewis Mountain, Observatory Hill, Stillhouse Mountain, and several smaller peaks near the Ragged Mountain Reservoir are located in the DeCelopment Area, and are zoned R-1 Residential, These areas are included in the MOD to be consistent and because the ~oncerns are the same regarding critical slopes and elevation. For example, the portion of Lewis Mountain within the MOD is 'almost entirely critical slopes. With the current prohibition of building on critical slopes, those areas have a limited amount of development available, despite the R-1 zoning. 5. Flat and accessible ridges should not be subject, to Ridge Area provisions because building on them would be less environmentally damaging than building elsewhere on the parcel . The special use permit provision has bee~ recommended as a method to permit building on Ridge Areas (30.8.4 c. and d. in the June 8 draft). Since each ridge has individual characteristics, it is nearly impossible to draft an ordinance that defines a "buildable" ridge from an "unbuildable" ridge. The special use permit provision would deal with each separate situation. 6. Special permits are undesirable because the decision to grant them becomes political rather than on the merits, and/or requires that one come "hat in hand" to the government. Special use permits are the only way to address specific differences in topography on different ridges, 2 and to address siting issues and aesthetic issues such as color, which can_not otherwise be required. state law, we are not perm!tted to require a site plan for a single family dwelling, so the special use permit is the only tool available. By Criteria for the special use permits is included in the Zoning Ordinance Section 31.2.4.1 (the use will r~ot be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, the character of the district will not be changed, the use will be in harmony with the pt~rpose and intent of the ordinance, etc.); and in Section 30.8.1 Intent of the Mountain Overlay District (protecting water quality, conservation of forestry resources, promoting public safety, etc.). Good and longtime stewards of the land should not be subject to regulation. Ordinance provisions are in no way intended to ignore or minimize the historical stewardship of the mountains by landowners. However, with the growth and development pressures Albemarle is likely to face, there is no guarantee that future owners would continue the tradition of good stewardship. 8. It is not generally understood that Section 4.2.01, the constructed embankments provision (for driveways, accessways and building pads) is proPosed County-.wide~ This provision is unnecessary, especially in non- mountainous areas. Although the Mountain Comfnittee originally recommended driveway standards to apply only in the MOD, the County Attorney's opinion is that driveway regulations must be imposed County-wide. It may be preferable to address County-wide driveway regulations separately from the MOD issues. This could be done by removing Section 4.2.01 from the proposed ordinance and dealing with the driveways issue in a separate charge to the Planning Commission. Why isn't steepness'of private roads and driveways addressed? Private roads serving three or more dwellings or lots are currently required to comply with VDOT mountainous terrain standards. This means the road cannot exceed 16% slope. The Mountain Committee originally recommended that driveways also meet the 16% maximum slope. When it was determined that driveway standards would have to be imposed County-wide, it was thought to be too burdensome to require road plans )vhich showed mad gradients for all new driveways. If County-wide driveway regulations are considered separately, the gradient question can .be studied at that time. 10. Are 2:1 side slopes more damaging environmentally and mOre erodible than shorter and steeper slopes? In most cases, 2:1 slopes are ea. sier to stabilize than steeper slopes because vegetation is more likely to become established on gentler slopes. Unless vegetation is established, the slope will continuously erode. It is possible that requiring 2:1 side slope will result in a wider graded swath. However, it may be difficult or impossible to stabilize steeper slopes, and gentler slopes may be easier to maintain. The COunty Engineer has suggested new language (in the June 8 draft) in Section 4.2.01 Constructed embankments and Section 30.8.5 Private roads, to provide greater flexibility in approving constructed embankments which are steeper than 2:1 slope. Under the revised language, constructed embankments may be approved at any slope, rather than being limited to 1.5:1 maximum slope, provided they are stabilized. For example, if rock is present, it could be stabilized at a slope steeper than 2:1 slope. Currently, 2:1 slopes are required for private and public roads, but not for driveways. The County Engineer is now suggesting that the side -slopes requirement for driveways only pertain to slopes taller than five feet. It may be preferable to address County-wide driveway regulations separately from the MOD issues. 1L Can a moratoriUm on.appr°ving plats be instituted right away? ' The County Attorney has stated that a moratorium is not legally permitted for this purpose. Staff has · already received a number of subdivision applications in the mountain area, and anticipate that we will continue to receive applications in the mountain areas while this ordinance is under consideration. 12. Some provisions may make it more difficult for less affluent landowners to build Building in the mountains is necessarily and already more expensive than building on less steep, more accessible property. The MOD will impose some additional costs for a single family dwelling: (1) Increased initial cost of grading 2:1 side slopes on a driveway (additional cost related to steepness of land and length of driveway). But as this produces a more stable driveway, long-term maintenance costs may be lower. (2) An erosion control plan (including a bond) may be required instead of an agreement. A plan allows the Engineering Department to make sure erosion controls are adequately designed for the steeper mountain conditions. An agreement is a paper signed by the property owner which states that the owner will comply with whatever is necessary to control erosion. A plan permit fee is currently $40; an agreement has no fee. The cost to prepare an erosion control plan by a professignal may be up to $10002 Professional services are not required for an agreement. (3) Locate building site on a boundary survey if a recent subdivision plat does not show a building site. Engineering estimates this would add $400 - $2500. Currently, proof of a building site is not required to obtain a building permit. Rather, building sites are confirmed during inspections. In the mountains, where critical slopes are common, confirmation of a building site becomes more important. One way to avoid a high cost to the landowner would be to use a USGS topographic map to confirm a building site prior to obtaining a building permit. The building site could also be located on a parcel using a topographic map. More information could be required in certain cases. (4)The driveway centerline and building site must be staked by a surveyor. The cost range is $300 - 1000, depending on the amount of field work involved. 13. The ordinance constitutes a taking. The County Attorney has concluded that it does not. 14. The ordinance is analogous to eminent domain or a conservation easemena Therefore the County owes compensation. All development rights may continue to be used in the MOD by right, and within the Ridge Area by special use permit, provided the.intent of the ordinance is met. With these provisions, no development ' rights are lost, so there is no seizure as in eminent domain. A conservation easement usually permits only one dwelling per 100 acres, so effects of this ordinance are not analogous. 15. Even if the ordinance does not constitute a taking, it produces loss in value and'the County should pay for that. The County Attorney stated that as long as a reasonable use is provided, the County is not required to compensate for a loss in value. 16. More time is needed for public input, more study. As far as "more study" is concerned, it is useful to know that the Mountain Committee met monthly for a year. They reviewed existing regulations, enabling legislation, and constitutional takings issues. They met with the County Attorney, Health Department, Department of Forestry, Natural Resources Conservation Service and others to obtain information and advice. Other localities' ordinances were reviewed. Comments were solicited from the Farm Bureau, the chamber of Commerce, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, and County agencies including Housing, Engineering, Zoning, Planning, and the County Attorney and others in written form. When the committee completed its report in the fall of 1996, a press conference was held with television and newspaper coverage. Copies of the Plan were published and made available to the general public. The Board received the plan and directed the Planning Commission to hold work segsions. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to adopt an ordinance. In accordance with State law, all affected landowners were notified by letter of the upcoming public hearings. Staff held an open house on May 7 for the public. Two public hearings were held, each well attended. No significant new ideas or approaches wereput forth in the public hearings which were not already considered by the Committee or staff. 17. Should one or two dwelling on each parcel be exempted from everything in the MOD ordinance? The current zoning regulations for critical slopes require that you build on a building site if one exists. Current regulations also allow one dwelling on each parcel, whether or not a building site exists. The MOD allows' one dwelling to be built on a Ridge Area by right if that is the only location for a building site on a parcel. Otherwise, dwellings are required to be located outside the Ridge Area on a building site. The MOD also imposes driveway (constructed embankment) requirements and soil erosion requirements. Parcels that straddle the MOD must use a building site outside the MOD if available. If one or two dwellings were exempted by the MOD ordinance, they would not be subject to any site plan or erosion plan (as opposed to agreement) requirements or siting or design regulations, as they could be Under a special use permit. Since these requirements are for the safety of the resident as well as protection of the natural resource, releasing dwellings from these requirements could have unwanted long-term consequences. Because of the large number of parcel~ (1900) in the MOD, exempting dwellings from the ordinance could result in a potentially large number of dwellings in the Ridge Area. 18. there no land disturbing in excess of 2500 square feet permitted above 25% slope? The 2500 square foot measure simply designates when the requirement for a soil erosion permit takes effect for land-disturbing activities in the MOD, according to the already-adopted Water Ordinance. If the MOD zoning map is adopted, then language in the Water Ordinance adopted in February, 1998 will go into effect. It says that within the MOD, a land disturbing activity requiring a soil erosion permit is'defined as 2,500 square feet; elsewhere it is 10,000 square'feet. The zoning ordinance currently permits grading on slopes of 25% and greater, but does not. permit a building site there. This would not change under the MOD. Driveways could still be c0nstmcted across 25%+slopes. 19. Could a special use permit be approved administratively within the MOD or Ridge Area based on compliance with a voluntary list of special use permit criteria? By state law, special use permits cannot be approved administratively. A list of criteria prepared by staff may not be construed as "voluntary." For example, while the applicant could offer to construct an "earth-tone" dwelling, staff cannot require that a non-white house be a criterion for approval. 20. The landowner would have to go to a lot of expense to locate a small peak on their property which has been designated adjacent to a larger mountain (such as in the Southwest Mountains area). In many cases the location of the elevation in relation to a proposed dwelling can be determined from the USGS topographic maps. If the dwelling is proposed very near the elevation, then the owner will need to cOnfirm its location through a surveyor. If the surveyor does not have a GPS unit, which is the latest technology, then traditional surveying methods using a known benchmark would be used to determine elevation. 21. Does this ordinance prevent a big, white house on a mountain? Yes and no. On an existing parcel which straddles the MOD, a building site must be located outside the MOD if one exists. Nothing in the present ordinance would prevent subdivision of a straddling parcel to create a new lot which is entirely within the MOD, if there is a building site located there, and if the parcel has extra development rights. Color cannot be regulated, nor can tree cutting to expose the house be regulated. A design booklet will be prepared with suggestions that may be incorporated by applicants for building in a mountain area. The driveway will require approval of a soil erosion permit, which entails greater scrutiny within the MOD than is presently required. COUNTY Of ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 98-01 Mountains ZTA 98-05 Mountain Overlay District and Related Provisions ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay District SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed Amendments Related to Mountain Protection STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish, Ms. Scala AGENDA DATE: June 3, 1998 lwork session) June 10, 1998 (public hearing) ACTION: Yes (public headng) CONSENT AGENDA: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: PROPOSAL: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: Yes (work session) Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan CPA 98-01 Mountains - An amendment to Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, "The)Natural Environment," to include a section on "Mountains," including a list of Mountains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map description of Mountains by contour elevation. (ATTACHMENT A - yellow) Amendment to.the Zoning Ordinance Text ZTA 98-05 Mountain Overlay District and related provisions - An amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Albemarle to add Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour elevations in mountain districts, including a requirement to obtain a special use permit to subdivide lots under 21 acres, and restrictions such as no building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, the following amendments to Chapter 20 would apply County-wide: An amendment to add Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also proposed to related Code provisions, including Section 3.0 Definitions, Section 4.2 Cdtical Slopes, and Section 31.2.2 Building Permits. (ATTACHMENT B - Original ordinance -white) {ATTACHMENT C - Revised ordinance as recommended by Planning Commission - ivory) Amendment to the Zoning Map ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay District - An amendment to the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations and described as Mountains in the proposed Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District and in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES: A Mountain Overlay District (MOD) boundary for each mountain has been identified by a specific contour line elevation, located in the area where the critical slopes begin on a particular mountain. (Example: The-MOD boundary for Fox Mountain begins at the 1200 foot contour elevation.) The intent is to protect the mountain resources above this elevation, where the mountain becomes visually prominent, and where development is more difficult due to concentrations of critical slopes. Within the MOD boundaries, Ridge Areas have been delineated. (In no case does a Ridge Area extend outside a MOD boundary. ) The Ridge Area is the highest and most prominent part of a mountain, defined as land within 100 vertical feet of the mountain ddgeline and peaks. The intent of the ordinance is to keep development offthe Ridge Area as much as possible. The proposed MOD boundaries and Ridge Areas have been shown on topographic maps and on tax maps, which will . become the official Mountain Overlay District zoning maps when adopted. ORIGIN: On October 15, 1996 the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding a Mountain Overlay District and to amend the Subdivision Ordinance as recommended in the Committee's report. BACKGROUND: 1971: Mountain protection efforts began with the adoption of the County's first ComprehenSive Plan which described the mountains as "conservation areas." The provisions of the proposed Mountain Overlay Distdct are based on concerns described in that Plan and successive Comprehensive Plans. 1980: Steps were taken to protect mountains through regulation when the Rural Areas zoning distdct and the critical slopes provision were adopted. The cdticai slopes provision currently requires a "building site" (minimum 30,000 square feet of less than 25% slope for the location of the dwelling and septic system). Driveways are not regulated on critical slopes. 1992: The Open Space and Crrdcal Resources Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors as part of the Comprehensive Plan, recommended a mountain protection ordinance and first defined mountains by contour elevations. 1995: The Board of Supervisors appointed a twelve member Mountain Protection Committee to study mountain protection measures and to make a recommendation regarding an ordinance. 1996: The Committee's final report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan (ATTACHMENT D) dated August 1, 1996, recommended that the Board adopt an ordinance to protect water quality, reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values with their associated economic impact, tourism, and public safety. The Board of Supervisors received the re port on September 4, 1996, and directed the Planning Commission to-hold work sessions on a proposed ordinance as recommended by the Committee. The Planning Commission held three work sessions that fall, leading to the resolution of intent ado pted on October 15, 1996. Staff was directed to pre pare the final ordinance language. 1996-1998: Planning staff worked with the County Attorney's office, the Mountain Protection Committee, and the other County development departments to prepare final ordinance language consistent with the intent of the Committee's odginal recommendations, The Planning Commission held a final worksession on April 7, 1998, and a public hearing on May 19, 1998. At its public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously (6-0) of all three amendments, with changes as descdbed below. PUBLIC PURPOSES TO BE SERVED: · To .protect the environment: water quality and quantity (public drinking water reservoirs and groundwater); to reduce soil erosion and runoff; to protect plant and animal habitat. · To protect scenic quality and character of County (quality of life, sense of place) · To protect economic benefits: tourism indust~ (a major sector of County's economy), agricultural (such as orchard and vineyard land) and forestry resources. · To protect general public safety: better emergency vehicle access, protects residences from debris flow hazard. · To promote more efficient use of tax payer services (furthering our Rural Area policy limiting_delivery of services in Rural Area). DISCUSSION: Mountain Overlay District The proposed Mountain Overlay District would overlay the underlying zoning district, which is largely the PA, Rural Areas District. Currently, building can take place in the RA District in mountain areas if (1) development rights exist; (2) if a buiiding site is available, and C3) if other zoning and subdivision requirements are met, such as access requirements. If a parcel has no building site, one dwelling is currently permitted. The effects of the proposed MOD would be.as follows: · Small Lots ORIGINAL ORDINANCE: A special use permit would be required to develop small development right lots in the MOD. Minimum 21 acre parcels could be divided by right in the MOD if'building sites are available. AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: Both small development right lots and minimum 21 acre parcels could be divided by right in the MOD. Ridge .Area ORIGINAL ORDINANCE: Building may not occur on the Ridge Area. Exceptions: If the entire parcel is within the Ridge Area, or if the parcel straddles the Ridge Area and the only building site is within the Ridge Area, then one dwelling is permitted there. Other exceplJons are accessory buildings (non-dwellings) under 500 square feet (like a hunting cabin); Production agriculture and forestry uses (like a barn); agricultural and forestry roads; and structures less than 20 feet high (like a gazebo). AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: The Board of Supervisors should consider a mechanism, such as a special use permit, to permit building within the Ridge Area when it can be shown that it would cause less environmental degradation than building below the Ridge Area. Building Sites All approved building sites must be shown on the final plat. If a parcels straddles the MOD, then the building site must be located outside the MOD if one is available there. Building Permits To obtain a building permit in the MOD, one of the following is required: (1) a final plat showing an approved building site, or (2) on a parcel created pdor to the current ordinance, a boundary survey with an approved building site depicted by a surveyor or engineer. In addition, evidence will be required that an erosion control plan or agreement has been approved. Water Ordinance Requirements A "land disturbing activity" which requires compliance with the Water Ordinance is defined within the MOD as 2,500 square feet or more; outside the MOD it is10,000 square feet or more. Within the MOD it is likely that an erosion contol plan will be required rather than an agreement. Constructed Embankments A maximum 2:1 slope on constructed embankments would apply to ali driveways and building pads throughout the County. Private Roads Private roads are currently restricted to 16% grade by the existing subdivision ordinance. Additional requirements for private roads within the MOD are: A maximum 2:1 slope on constructed embankments, and a minimum 40 feet radius for horizontal curvature. Existing Residences ORIGINAL ORDINANCE:The status of existing residences was not addressed specifically. AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION:Specific clause added to clarify the issue of existing houses. The Committee's major concerns which have been addressed by the proposed ordinance are: (1) Keeping development off the Ridge Areas; (2) Specifying on the final plat the location of the actual building site to be used; (3) If a lot straddles the M~D, requiring that the building site b~ located outside the MOD if one is available there; (4) Requiring an erosion control plan for all driveways and houses within the MOD; and (5) Limiting the slope of constructed embankments to 2:1. The major differences between the proposed ordinance language and the Committee's original recommendations are: (1) the Committee's recommended ddveway regulations have been deleted; (2) the Water Protection Ordinance was adopted with a provision that defines "land disturbing activity" with the MOD as minimum 2,500 sq. feet. The Committee supports this provision, especially as it includes driveways; and (3) the Committee originally recommended that small lots be permitted by right, but located outside the MOD when possible. (The original ordinance recommended a special use permit for small lots in the MOD; the Planning Commission recommended deletion of the special use pemit requirement for small lots to'allow them by right in the MOD.) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The proposed Comprehensive Plan section describes: · the value of mountains and concerns related to inappropriate development; · the types of natural resources and physical Conditions present in the mountains; · a history of mountain protection; and · the Committee's recommendations for mountain protection measures and a systematic approach to resource protection in Albemarle County. The Comprehensive Plan section also includes new Design Standards' addressing development on mountains which will be incorporated into an educational brochure recommended by the Mountain Protection Committee. If the adopted ordinance requires a special use permit, either to allow small lots in the MOD, or to allow certain development in the Ridge Area, then the criteda used to evaluate those special use permit applications will be provided by: (1) the general criteda for all special use permits found in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 31.2.4.1, and (2) the Comprehensive Plan section on Mountains. 3 Impact Analysis of Pro posed Mountain Overlay District Ordinance The proposed ordinance has been evaluated for impacts to (1) housing costs; (2) County staffing needs; and (3) development review time. (ATTACHMENT E -gray) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on May 19, 1998 recommended unanimously (6-0) approval of the following amendments: CPA 98-01 Mountains - recommended approval as proposed. ZTA 98-05 Mountain Overlay District and related provisions - recommended approval with the following changes: (1) Delete the requirement fora special use permit for small lots by deleting the third paragraph of Section 30.8.1 Intent; and by deleting the language of Section 30.8.3.1 By Right, after the second 'by right;" and by deleting the language of Section 30.8.3.2 By Special Use Permit, after the first ~district" and before the second "acres." (2) Clarify the issue of existing houses by adding new Section 30.8.9 Grandfathered Dwellings, using the language proposed bythe County Attorney. The grandfathering clause should clarify that an existing house that burns can be rebuilt. (3) Make other technical changes suggested by Commissioners Rieley and Rooker: a. Add ~fences' to the list of exceptions in Section 4.2.3.1 Placement on Building Site. b. Move the contents of Section 30.8.4 DenSity to Section 30.8.5 Location of Building Sites, delete Section 30.8.4, and adjust numbering after Section 30.8.4. c. Move Section 30.8.8.b. to Section 30.8 Mountain Overlay District. It will become a single paragraph under the heading of 30.8. d. Add to Section 30.8.6.b. ~...shall be forty (40) feet or greater on centerline ..... ' O'he rest remains the same.) e. Change the last sentence of Section 30.8.8.a. to read, '...Survey 1927 North American datum, with benchmark c~r c, th~r such d~t~rn acceptable to the county engineer.' (4) Ask the Board of Supewisors to consider a mechanism, such as a special use permit, to permit building within the Ridge Area when it can be shown that it would cause less environmental degradation than building below the Ridge Area. Note: Staff recommends the following language if the Board chooses to accept this recommendation: A single family dwelling (otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning) shall be permitted by special use permit in the Ridge Area if it can be demonstrated that buildinq in that particular location would cause less environmental deg~ radation and better meet the intent of the ordinance to protect tfie mountain resources than building below the ridge area on the same parcel. The proposed ordinance current permits one dwelling to be built in the Ridge Area if the only building site on a parcel is in the Ridge Area; that provision would remain. ZMA 98-10 MoUntain Overlay District - Recommended approval as proposed. 98.100' ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED COMPREIqENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER TWO, THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OPEN SPACE RESOURCES JUNE 10, 1998 CPA 98-01 MOUNTAINS INTRODUCTION Albemarle's mountains have been and continue to be a source of income, natural resources, scenic beauty, and recreation. Mountains may be said to de£me much of the character of Albemarle County. Directly and indirectly, the County's mountainous areas provide economic benefits to the local community in employment, tourism, and agricultural and forest products. Beyond the economic benefits, the mountains provide important natural functions, such as provision of clean water, contributions to healthy air, and habitats for many of the County's plant and animal species. And, to many residents, the blue backdrop of the mountains gives Albemarle County in large measure its "Sense of place," that quality which makes this area a special place to its residents and visitors and one which is consistently ranked among the top places to live in the United States. Mountains are a source of concern when inappropriate development creates unwanted impacts to environmental and aesthetic resources and public safety. Environmental concerns include soil erosion, surface water runoff, septic system contamination,.fragmentation of forests, and destruction of habitat. Aesthetic concerns center on disruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness, and the resultant impact on tourism. Public safety concerns include difficult access for emergency vehicles, and the potential for debris flows. OBJECTIVE: Recognize the value of Albemarle's mountains, including protecting water quality and drinking water reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant.and animal habitat, scenic · values, tourism, and the economic impact of these resources. Pursue additionalprotection measures to protect these resources and to promote public safety in these areas of exceptional critical slopes and higher elevations. Strategies: Develop a mountain protection district to protect and promote mountain resources and to protect public safety in mountain areas. Develop an educational brochure with recommended design standards for mountain areas to encourage sensitive site design which is considerate of safety, environmental and aesthetic concerns. Encourage voluntary measures which protect mountain resources, such as conservation easements, agricultural and forestal districts, and use value taxation. Encourage the use of the Rural Preservation Development (RPD) option to protect mountain resources. Utilize an acquisition program, such as purchase of development rights (PDR), to protect mountains. When enabling legislation allows, evaluate a density transfer or transfer of development rights(TDR) program to protect mountains. Develop County planning tools and educational materials that address hazard avoidance with regard to areas that are prone to debris flows. In conjunction with appropriate resource agencies, develop a.debris flow hazard map for Albemarle County. ALBEMARLE'S MOUNTAIN RESOURCES Albemarle's mountains are unique areas of the CounW which are distinguished by the natural resources and physical conditions listed below. Such resources and conditions are found in other areas of the County, but only in the mountains do they occur in such combination, as extensively, and to' such extremes. Critical Slopes: Mountain areas are unique and distinct from the lower elevations of the CounW that also may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances than critical slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper. In Albemarle's mountains continuous critical slopes in excess of 50% can be fgund for distances of up to one mile, and in some cases, longer.. Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountain areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas. Soil: Forest cover is the optimum land use for minimizing soil erosion and maximizing water quality. Soils on steep slopes are typically more erodible than in other areas. Inaccessibility and isolated location of development sites in mountain areas necessitate longer driveways and access roads over more highly erodible ' soils than in other areas of the County. Such driveways and access roads may disturb many times more land area than a dwelling itself. Improper attention to soils may result in accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, ground or surface, water pollution, landslides, flooding, drainage problems, failed septic systems, construction problems, and unproductive agricultural and forestal lands. Water Quality and Quantity: Sedimentation of Albemarle's public drinking water reservoirs in addition to increased demand may necessitate the building of an additional raw water source prior to 2015 to meet the average daily demands of the Urban Service Area. The South Rivanna Reservoir loses 13 million gallons of storage capacity annually as a result of sedimentation. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir, by contrast, loses no appreciable capacity. Protection of water resources is of vital importance to Albemarle County and Virginia in general. Albemarle's location adjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides both the advantage of clean headwaters} and a responsibility to protect them. (See Water Resources, page -) Forest and Agricultural Resources: The mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover, with the remaining acreage in orchards and pasture. A viable forest industry is an essential economic incenffve to maintenan6e of forest land. The principal threat to the County's mountain forests and farms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residential land use. The County's Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee report states," Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of the forest industry in Albemarle County...As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." The Growth Management Goal of Albemarl.e County places highest priority on the protection of agricultural and forestry resources in the Rural Area. The Mountain areas are zoned almost exclusively Rural Areas. The Rabun-Myersville-Catoctin soil association on the Southwest-Carters Mountain chain is among the most productive hardwood forest soils in the Commonwealth. Debris Flows: Some types of landslides take place very gradually, and while they can cause property damage, the landslide can be tracked and mitigation planned. Others types of landslides move very rapidly and have to potential to inflict massive damage to-natural landscapes and human settlements. Debris flows (also called mudslides, mudflows, or debris avalanches) are a particular type of fast-moving landslide that occurs during periods of intense rainfall. 2 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) describes debris flows as follows: Fast moving flows of mud and rock, called debris flows, are among the most destructive types of landslides and are responsible for substantial damage and loss of life worldwide...Their consistency ranges from watery mud to stiff, rocky mud similar to wet concrete and dense enough to carry boulders, trees and cars .... Debris flows are triggered predominantly by adding moisture to soil on steep slopes faster than the moisture can drain away leading to a temporary condition of perched water in the soil:... They commonly start on steep hillsides as shallow soil slides that liquefy, accelerate to speeds of 35 miles per hour or more, and flow down hill slopes and channels until slowing on more gentle ground. The following debris flow events have occurred in recent times in our particular region of the Appalachian Mountain chain: · In 1969, during Hurricane Camille, Nelson County (and a small part of Southern Albemarle) experienced debris flows that caused 150 deaths and $100 million in property damage. · In November, 1985, widespread debris flows in Virginia and West Virginia in the Potomac and Cheat River basins led to 70 deaths and $1.3 billion in property damage. · In June, 1995, a storm cell in Madison County caused by 30 inches of rain during a 16 hour period resulted in debris flows that caused one fatality and $100 million in property damage. · During the same period as.the Madison County events, at least 100 debris flows occurred along the North Fork M0orman's River in Albemarle County and Shenandoah National Park. It is estimated that at least 11.5 inches of rain fell during a two-hour period. Were it not for the Sugar HollowReservoir, which acted as a trap for the debris flow flood surge' from the North Fork Moorman's, eight or more downstream residences would almost certainly have been destroyed. In addition, scientists have documented 51 historical debris flow events, between 1844 and 1985 in the Appalachians. Studies of debris flow sims have revealed old, prehistoric debris flows beneath deposits of modem debris flows, meaning that, in geologic time, debris flows are recurring events in the Appalachian region. While a debris flow may not return to the exact.same geographic area (e.g., the North Fork Moorman's) for thousands of years, it is known that conditions promoting debris flows occur somewhere in the Appalachian region every two to three years, and, accordingly, somewhere along Virginia's Blue Ridge front approximately once every decade. Compared to other areas of the country, Central Virginia is not known as a region that is particularly vulnerable to natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, etc.). However, floods and debris flows are certainly natural hazards that are known to occur in Central Virginia, and for which the population should be prepared. With regard to typical flooding, the County maintains a flood plain program in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program, and regulates activities within flood plains through the zoning ordinance. Debris flows, however, are not typical floods, and until the events of June, 1995 brought these realities to our door step, the community has remained largely unaware of this natural hazard. It is important for the County and the residents of mountain-side communities to realize that there are measures that can be taken to avoid debris flow hazards and to be prepared. The U.S. Geological Survey recommends the following general measures: Become familiar with the land around you. Learn whether debris flows have occurred in your area by contacting local officials, State geological surveys or departments of natural resources, and university, departments of geology. Slopes where debris flows have occurred in the past are likely to experience them in the future. Support your local government in efforts to develop and enforce land-use and building ordinances that regulate construction in areas susceptible to landslides and debris flows. Buildings should be located away from steep slopes~ streams and rivers, intermittent-stream channels, and the mouths of mountain channels. Watch the patterns of storm-water drainage on slopes near your home, and note especially the places where runoff water converges, increasing flow over soil-covered slopes. Wat6h the hillsides around your home for any signs of land movement, such as small landslides or debris flows or progressively tilting trees. 4. Contact your local authorities to learn about the emergency response and evacuation plans for your area, and develop your own emergency plans for your family and business. In accordance with these recommendations, the County should enhance its planning and informational resources to direct and advise that development avoid debris flow-prone areas. In this regard, recent USGS studies have identified the following predictive criteria for potential future debris flows: · Storms with very intensive rainfall -- the 1995 storms had periods with rainfall intensities of 5 inches per hour that were sustained for 2 hours or more. · Areas underlain by prehistoric debris flow deposits. · Areas underlain by slopes greater than 26 degrees (67 percent slope). · Natural drainage Channels and streams that originate on slopes greater than 26 degrees and del ineated with a buffer 10 feet in elevation above the channel. The USGS has used the~e and other criteria to produce a hazard map for Madison County based on studies of the 1995 debris flows. Albemarle County should work with the appropriate agencies to produce a similar map for the County's mountain areas. The information in this section was derived frOm the following reports: Debris-Flow Hazards in Areas Affected by the dune 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Morgan, B.A., Wieczorek, R.H., Campbell, and Gori, P.L., USGS Open-File Report 97-438, 1997. Debris Flows and Landslides Resulting From The dune 27, 1995, Storm on the North Fork of the Moorman's River, Shenandoah National _Park, Virginia, Morgan, B.A. and Wieczorek, G.F., USGS Open-. File Report 96-503, August, 1996. Debris-Flow Hazards in the Blue Ridge of Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet - 159-96, 1996. Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the dune 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Wieczorek, G.F., Gori, P.L., Campbell, R.H., and Morgan, B.A., USGS Open-File Report 95-822, October, 1995. 4 Plant and Animal Habitat: Losses of native biological diversity (plant and animal species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity) are a significant concern. Those declines are caused by several factors. most importantly, fragmentation of habitat - the dividing of large areas into smaller parcels, and the resulting disruption of forest cover. (See Biodiversity, page -, and Forest Fragmentation, page -). Scenic Resources and their Economic Impact: Albemarle County is well known for its scenic character. Maintaining this character is important to current residents and to prospective residents and tourists. A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important to County residents. An issue that is of importance to visual impact is the horizon. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area. (See Scenic Resources, page -). Dark Sky: Excessive outdoor lighting in the urban and developed areas ofthe County is increasing. The natural resource of dark night sky and its importance to the University's Observatories has been insufficiently considered in planning processes in the County. Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more than a billion dollars a year (International Dark Sky Association, 1990). Poorly designed outdoor lighting creates glare, which compromises safety especially for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City, and degrades the quality of the built environment. (See The Dark Sky, page -). Tourism: Tourism and associated economic benefits related to the mountains continue to grow in the County. Travel sales in 1994 accounted for 17% of total sales or $109,139,211 in the County. Each year approximately 1,985,000 people visit Shenandoah National Park. Direct economic benefit to counties adjoining the Park is approximately 85 million dollars per year. In 1990 there were 550,183 visitors to Monticello, which translates' into over 159 million dollars in revenue to the County. ltlSTORY OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTION Mountain resource protection efforts began in 1971 with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan, which delineated the mountains as "conservation areas." The 1977 Comprehensive Plan contained a map of conservation areas which included hilltops, major ridge lines, and slopes over 15%. Hillside development standards were proposed on slopes exceeding 15%, which included road-construction, grading and drainage standards. In 1980 a new zoning ordinance was adopted, which included the Rural Areas zoning district to restrict rural development rights, and the critical Slopes provisions. All the mountains except two small peaks in the Urban Development Area are currently zoned Rural Areas. The critical slopes provisions require a "building site," a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%. The regulation is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as critical slopes. The 1980 critical slopes provisions did not address driveway construction. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan included environmental standards to protect and conserve natural resources. The Plan states: "Clearing, grading, building, cropping or overgrazing of critical slopes can result in extensive erosion and landslides or sloughing of soil and rock; excessive storm water runoff; increased siltation and sedimentation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent." 5 The 1989 Comprehensive Plan states that, "Natural, scenic, and historic resources are essemial to Albemarle County's rural character, economic vitality and quality of life." The Plan notes the strong relationship between these environmental resources, water supply protection, and agricultural/forestry preservation, which are the major reasons for protecting the Rural Area. The Plan also notes.the interdependency of environmental resources, "For example, the maintenance of forested areas protects surface water quality, wi Idlife habitat, critical slopes, groundwater recharge areas, and air quality." The 1989 Plan also discusses design standards for scenic resources. "In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area." The Plan recommended adoption of an Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, to identifyand to develop protection measures for significant natural and scenic resources, including critical slopes, important wildlife habitat, wooded areas of environmental importance, and hilltops and ridges. The Open Space Plan, adopted July 15, 1992 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, identifies Mountains as one of four major open space systems which are the most important open space lands to protect. It lists resources associated with mountains: critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extdnsive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitats for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters. The Open Space Plan defines mountains by~a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. (See attached list of Mountains.) The Open Space Plan includes the following strategy which was also added to the Comprehensive Plan action agenda: "Develop.a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated with mountains, and to further protect their environmental characteristics." . The Open Space Plan states: "Visual concerns related to mountains center on disruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a sense of continuity, natural, beauty, and wilderness. Extensive critical slopes, combined with high elevations, result in a prominent display of changes to the mountain landscape. Activities which alter the continuity of the ridgeline or result in excessive tree removal should be discouraged. Environmental concerns include (1) the loss to development of a unique and beneficial natural environment and (2) disruption of the natural balance of soils, slope and vegetation. While detailed studies have not been undertaken at this time, it is anticipated that due to the location of generally unspoiled and extensive forests, together with a relatively small human and domestic animal population, mountains may be areas of comparative significance as "natural areas" and "wildlife habitats." Mountains also provide areas of unique soils suitable for orchards and vineyards between elevations of 800 - 1800 feet..Environmental benefits of undisturbed forests often associated with mountains include increased groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and climate modulation. In addition, concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountainous regions due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Issues related to soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas." MOUNTAIN PROTECTION PLAN The Mountain Protection Committee consisting of 12 citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors met from June, 1995 through July, 1996. They prepared a report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1, 1996, which was presented to the Board of Supervisors September 4, 1996. The plan contained three major recommendations: (1) Delineation of a Mountain Overlay District describing the area containing the critical resources of the mountains, and recommendations which ensure health and safety of the mountain area's residents and which control possible degradation of County's resources from activities within the District. The .intent of an ordinance would be to protect resources characteristic of or dependent on the mountainous regions of the County: public safety, water quality, public drinking water reservoir capacity. soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values associated with the mountains and their economic impact, and tourism. Specific recommendations for a Mountain Overlay District addressed soil erosion plans, driveway requirements, protection of ridge areas, and building and subdivision requirements to use building-sites located outside the mountain district if they are available. (2) Recommendation of County-wide application: Lighting Ordinance to require shielding of all new exterior lighting fixtures. The Committee also recommended a future study to determine maximum foot candles for categories of uses, and recommended that the Board of Supervisors ask power companies to cease promoting unshielded and inefficient lighting. (See The Dark Sky, page-) (3) Additional Planning Tools: Though the Mountain Protection Committee's task was to develop recommendations for the protection of the mountains of the County, the Committee noted that planning for the protection 0f discrete areas or resources, such as the mountains, the urban areas, or the watershed must be integrated with a more systematic approach which provides for the protection of resource systems, such as drinking water, economic viability of urban areas, or transportation networks. The mountainous areas of Albemarle County are not only prominent physical features possessing critical natural resources, but they are also important parts of many human and natural systems in the County and region. Like other County human, cultural and natural resources, they therefore require consideration as components of larger planning issues. Some of the County's land use regulations developed with a compartmentalized approach to land p.~lanning may have unintended consequences for protection of its natural resources and other comprehensive planning goals of the County. Rural residential parcels (5-20 ac.) too small to farm or timber or serve as habitat, increase sprawl, put unintended pressure on mountain and agricultural lands. Areas of the County possessing critical resources may require different types of land use restrictions to protect the resource. Segregated land uses may unintentionally increase housing costs, and increase pressure on transportation systems and on agricultural lands in the path of proposed new roads. Discussion of natural resource protection may not be broad enough in scope to suggest effective or equitable solutions. The Committee recommended several planning tools to achieve a more systematic approach to resource protection for Albemarle County: The Mountain Protection Plan is attached as an appendix to this Comprehensive Plan. DESIGN STANDARDS · Minimize clearing. Consider the impact of your clearing on others' vistas of the unspoiled natural terrain. Locate driveways to minimize grading, length, and impact on critical slopes and trees. Driveways should disturb no more than 65 feet in cross section. Consider "peek holes" in the vegetation and winter views rather than clearing for year-round views. Maintain the natural tree canopy. Replant the forest edge with local indigenous species to discourage growth of undesirable edge vegetation (poison'ivy, greenbriars). · Locate the house and structures to make them unobtrusive in the landscape. Do not build structures taller than the natural tree canopy. Do not locate the house and structures where they will be "skylighted" against the horizon. Do not alter the continuity of the ridgeline. · Locate the house and structures to make them safe. Do not build in swales or other areas where a debris flow may occur. Minimize disturbances to critical slopes. Locate the septic system down slope of the dwelling to make use of the 'clearing as a fire buffer area. · Design private driveways to permit fire and rescue emergency vehicle access: Longitudinal gradient should not exceed 16%. Mimmum allowable radius for horizontal curvature should be 40 feet. Avoid north slopes where snow and ice may accumulate. · Design the house and structures to blend in with the terrain surrounding the building site. Choose non-reflective colors and materials. Choose earth tone colors rather than stark white. Choose underground rather than overhead electrical service. Choose local indigenous landsc, ape materials. Consider an alternative to growing a lawn. · Consider your impact on plant and animal habitat. Maintain the natural landscape in large contiguous areas. Clearing for a dwelling creates edge habitat. Be prepared to coexist with deer and other wildlife. · Locate and shield exteri~)r lighting to minimize its obtrusiveness on neighbors and the natural environment. Use full cutoff fixtures which are aimed downward. Use lighting which is adequate but not excessive for the proposed use. MOUNTAIN CONTOUR LIST The following named mountains and other unnamed mountains are included on the Concept Map (USGS quad sheet locations are noted if names are duplicated). They are defined by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. 700 Foot Contour Stillhouse Mountain Lewis Mountain Mt. Jefferson Southwest Mountains Trevillian Wolfpit Long Sugarloaf Lonesome Broadhead Hightop (Keswick Quad) Walnut Dowell Peters Goodlow Carters Mountain Monticello Patterson Round Top (Alberene Quad) 800 Foot Contour Piney Mountain (Earlysville Quad) Dudley Mountain Britts Piney (Alberene Quad) Ragged Mountains Round Top (Charlottesville West Quad) Bear Den (Charlottesville West Quad) Newcomb Woodson Gibson (Alberene Quad) Gillums Mountain Turner Mountain 900 Foot Contour Buck Mountain Taylor's Mountain Martin's Mountain (Crozet Quad) Sprouse Mountain Israel Mountain Tom Mountain Gay Mountain Ammonett Mountain Cook Mountain Persimmon Mountain Fan Mountain Mount Oliver Appleberry Mountain Shiloh Mountain Brush Mountain Yellow Mountain Harris Mountain Green Mountain (Free Union Quad) Cherry Mountain 1000 Foot Contour Boaz Mountains Walnut Top Mountain Heard Mountain Mill Mountain Chalk Mountain Castle Rock Mountain Moses Mountain Massies Mountain Long Arm Mountain High Top (Covesville Quad) Burnt Mountain Sharp Top Ennis Mountain - Round Top Mountain (Waynesboro East Quad) Turks Mountain Lick Mountain Currant Pigeon Top Mountain 1200 Foot Contour Blue Ridge Mountains Scott Bear Den (Waynesboro East Quad) Calf Bucks Elbow Little Yellow Beaver Creek . Middle Pasture Fence Pinestand Cedar Big Flat Little Flat Loft County Line Mountain Fox Mountain Gibson (Brown's Cove Quad) Martins (Brown's Cove Quad) High Top (Brown's Cove Quad) ATTACHMENT B Draft: March 31, 1998 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF AL'BEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained by adding sections 4.2.01, 30:8, 30.8.rl, 30.8.2, 30.8.3, 30.8.3.1, 30..8.3.2, 30.8.4, 30.8.5, 30.8.6, 30.8.7 and 30.8.8, and by amending sections~3.0, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.6.2 and 31.2.2, as follows: ~ By Adding New: Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments. Article iil. District Regulations Sec. 30.8. Sec. 30.8.1. Sec. 30.8.2. sec. 30.8.3. Sec. 30..8.3.1. Sec. 30.8.3.2. Sec. 30.8.4. Sec. 30.8.5. Sec. 30.8.6. Sec. 30.8.7. Sec. 30.8.8. Mountain overlay district. Intent. Establishment of district boundaries. Permitted uses. By riqht. By special use permit. Density. Location of buildincl sites. Private roads. Exempt structures. Relief from district requirements. By Amending: Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.0. Definitions. Article il. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.2.1. Sec. 4.2.3. Sec. 4.2.3.1. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Sec. 4.2.6.2. Building site required. Location of structures and improvements. Placement on buildincl site. Slope restrictions. Exception for existinq lots. Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec. 31.2.2. Article IV. Procedure Building permits. CHAPTER 20. ZOning ~Article I~ General Provisions Section 3.0. Definitions. Buildinq site: A contiquous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either United States Geoloqic.Survey topoqraphic survey maps ('contour interval twenty [201feet)or a source determined by the county enqineer. to be of superior accuracy, and which does not include land which is: (i) under water; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) within the one hundred (100) year flood plain of a natural stream identified on a site plan or on a plat; or (iv) within a stream buffer identified in the water protection ordinance except as otherwise allowed therein. Land disturbinq activity: Any land chanqe which may result in soil erosion frOm water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, includinq, but not limited tot 'clearinq, qradinq, excavatinq, transDortina and fillinq of land. Peak: The uppermost elevation of a land formation within the mountain overlay district which rises at least twenty (20) feet above the surroundinq land, as delineated on United states Geoloqic Survey topOqraphic survey maps. Ridqe area: All land within one hundred (100) vertical feet of, and. includinq, the. ridqeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8~2. Ridqeline: The uppermost line created by connectinq the peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, and from which land declines in elevation on at least two (2)sides, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.~.2. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.0. General Regulations. 2 Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec, 4.2.01, Constructed embankments. Each embankment conStructed on a lot or parcel in order to establish a driveway, accesswa¥, or buildinq pad, which the county enqineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of two (2~ feet or qreater, shall be subiect to the followinq: The constructed embankment shall not have-a qradient which exceeds two ('2~ feet of horizontal distance for each one (1/foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1). Notwithstandinq subsection (al, durinq construction the county enqineer may authorize a constructed embankment with a qradient not exceedinq one and one-half (1.5/ feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (1.5:1~ if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county enqineer tt~at: (i) extenuatinct circumstances exist; and (ii) equal or qreater water quality and land stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complyinq with subsection ('al. For purposes of this subsection, "extenuatinq circumstances" shall mean such thinqs as rock and other existino ~hvsical site features. Buildinq size, location and other factors that are.primarily the proprietary interest of the owner are not, in and of themselves, iustit~cation for. approval of a modification of the 2:1 qradient limitation. This determination may be made prior to construction in cases where the owner provides to the county enqineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient to enable the County enqineer to make a decision. The owner shall submit to the county enqineer all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county enqineer shall. identify all land stabilization measures that must be installed as a condition o[ grantinq the authorization provided in this Subsection; provided that, in areas, of a lot or parcel which the county enclineer determines to be predominantly rock, the county enqineer may qrant authorization without requidnq land stabilization measures. This section 4.2.01 shall not apply to any constructed embankment established as part of a public improvement proiect of a state or federal aqency, Sec. 4;2.1. Building site required. No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site. For purposes ,,,, .... o .... -,,,, 3 Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec. 4.2.3. Location of structures and 'improvements. Except as otherwise p6rmi=sd purauant to authorized by section 4.2.2 and section 4.2,6, the provisions of this section 4.2.3 shall apply to the location of any structure for which a permit is required ~ bv the Virqinia Uniform Statewide BUilding Code and to any improvement shown on a site ~Nwe~ plan ~ required by. section 32.0 of this ~ chapter. Sec. 4.2.3.1. Placement'on buildinq site. No structure or improvement, other than driveways, public utility lines and appurtenances, and stormwater management facilities, shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building site. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Slope restrictions. No structure,_ of improvement,_ ~,3r eaf~ land disturbing activity to establish such structure or improvement_, shall be located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, except as otherwise permitted 'under section 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.6.2 .Exception for existinq lots or parcels. Except as provided in sections 30.8.5.a and 30.8.5.b of this chapter, A_any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the establishment of the first single- family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; provided that section 4.2.3.2 shall apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall contain adequate land area in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent of for the location of such structure. For the purposes of this section a mobile'home shall be deemed a single-family detached dwelling unit. 4 Draft: March 31, 1998 Article II1. District Regulations Sec. 30.8. Mountain overlay district Sec. 30.8.1. Intent The mountain overlay district is intended to protect and promote those resources characteristic of, or'dependent on, the mountainous re(lions of the county, and il,cludes protectinq water quality and public drinkinq water reservoir capacity, promotinq soil conservation and the conservation of forest~resources, plant habitat, animal habitat. . and scenic values associated with the mountains of the county, protectinq and promotinq the economic impact of these resources and tourism, and promotin(l public safetY, by, amonq other thinqs, controllin(l land disturbinq activities in mountain areas that can contribute to or be impacted by debris flows and providinq that roads be desi(lned and constructed to accommodate the passaqe of fire and emerqency vehicles.. In establishinq the. mountain overlay district, the board of supervisors finds that mountain .areas are unique ,and distinct from the lower elevations of the county that also may contain, critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes': that extend for (lreater distances-than critical slopes at lower elevations and which may. be considerably steeper. The board of supervisors further finds that the cumulative effect of lots or .parcels less. than twenty-one (21~ acres and associated buildinq sites typically poses s~qnificantly greater public safety and welfare concerns in mountainous areas than sinqle buildinq. sites on larqer lots or parcels. These concerns are due to cumulative sOil erosion and runoff effects from a hiqher proportion of impervious surfaces in close proximity to extensive critical slopes, to physioqraphic difficulties of providinq adequate fire and emerqency vehicle access to multiple buildinqs, to the qreater likelihood of scenic impact from multiple buildings on the reqion's tourism and other economic sector~, to. increased risk from debris flows, and to increased impacts on plant and animal habitats and a(lricultural and forestry activities. Sec. 30.8.2. F~tablishment of district boundaries. The boundaries of the mountain overlay district, the ridqe areas, and the ridqelines are identified on, and established by, the official zoninq map approved by the board of supervisors and administered by the zoninq administrator. Sec. 30.8.3. Permiffed uses. 5 Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec. 30.8.3.1. By riqht. The uses identified as beinq permitted by riqht in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted in the mountain overlay district by riclht, except for lots or parcels of less than twenty-one (21) acres or multiple dweilinqs on any lot or parcel if the density on the lot or parcel is ctreater than one (1) dwellinq unit per twenty-one (21) acres. Sec. 30.8.3.2. By special use permit. The uses identified as being allowed by a special use permit in the underlying zoninq district, and lots or parcels of less than twenty-one (21) acres or multiple dwellings on. any lot or parcel otherwise permitted by right in the underlyinq zoninq distdct if the density on the Iot'or parcel is qreater than one (1) dwelling unit per twenty-one (2'~) acres, shall be allowed in the mountain overlay district only by a special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4. Sec. 30.8.4. Density. Each lot or parcel created shall comply with the following: a_. No lot or parcel shall be entirely within .a ridqe area. b_.. The buiidincl site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of a ridge area. C.._:. The buildinq site on the lot or parcel shall be lOcated outside of the mountain overlay district if a buildinq site exists outside of the mountain overlay district, Sec. 30.8.5. LoCation of buildinq sites. In addition to all other requlations pertaining to buildinq Sites contained in this chapter, the following shall apply to each buildinq site on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: The building site shall be located outside of the ridqe area, unless: (i) the lot or parcel is entirely within the ridge area, or the lot or parcel is both within and . without the ddqe area but the only building site is within the ridqe area; and (ii) the building site is for the first sinclle family dwelling unit on the lot or parcel. The buildincl site shall be located outside of the mountain overlay district, unless the lot or parcel is entirely within the mountain overlay district, or the lot or parcel is bothwithin and without the mountain overlay district but the only buiidinq site is within the mountain overlay district. 6 Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec. 30.8.6. Private roads. in addition to any other requirement for a private road approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance, any part of a private road which is located within the mountain overlay district shall also comply with the followinq standards. Each embankment constructed, which the county enqineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of two (2/.feet or qreater, shall be subiect to the followinq: 1__,. The constructed embankment shall not have a qradient which exceeds two (,2) feet of horizontal distance for each one ('1/foot of.vertical rise or fall (2:1). 2_. Notwithstandinq subsection (a)('l/, durinq construction, the county enctineer may authorize a con,,;tructed embankment with a clradient not exceedinq one and one-half (,1.5) feet of horizontal distance fOr each one (1~ foot of vertical rise or fall (1.5.:1/ if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county enqineer that: Ii/extenuatinq. circumstances exist; and (iii equal or qreater water quality and land stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complyincl with subsection (al(l/. For purposes of this subsection, "extenuatinq circumstances" shall mean such thinqs as rock and other existinq physical site features. This determination may be made prior to construction in cases where the owner provides to the county enqineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient to enable the county enqineer to make a decision. The owner shall submit to the county enq~neer' all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county enqineer shall identify all land stabilization measures that must be installed as a condition of grantinq the authorization provided in this subsection; provided that, in areas of the- priVate road which the county enqineer determines to be predominantly rock, the county enqineer may qrant authorization without requiring land stabilization measures. The radius for the horizontal curvature of a private road shall be forty (,,40) feet or clreater, except for that portion of the road which is a turnaround or a parki'nq space. Sec. 30.8.7. Exempt structures. The followinq structures within the mountain overlay district shall be exempt from any requirement of sections 30.8.4. 30.8.5 and 31.2.2.a of this chapter: 7 Draft: March 31, 1998 An accessory building of less than five hundred (500) square feet of interior floor area, not includinq porches; b_. .A structure, which is not a buiidinq, less than twenty feet in heiqht; c_. A structure used exclusively for prodUction aqricultural or forestal purposes; A tower used for the purpose of.supportinq one or more antennae for radio, television, microwave or wireless telecommunications. Sec. 30.8.8. Relief from district requirements. A lot or parcel, or any part thereof, shown on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2 to be within the mountain overlay district or the fidqe area shall not be subiect to the requirements of this section 30.8, section 31.2.2.a.2.a, or section 31.2.2.b.2, if the owner of the lot or parcel demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer that it is below the applicable minimum elevation o, outside of the ridqe area, as provided herein. In order to make such a demonstration', the owner shall submit to the county enqinccr a certificate from a licensed land surveyor that the lot or parcel, or part thereof, is below the applicable minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district as described in subsection (b), or outside of the ridqe area. The certification shall be based upon datum which coincides with United States Geoloqical Survey 1927 North American datum, or such other datum acceptable to the county en(~ineer ..... The mountain overlay district encompasses those mountainous areas of the county at and above the seven hundred (700), eight hundred (800), nine hundred (900), one thousand (1,000) or one thousand two hundred (1,200) foot elevations, dependinq on the Iocationof the mountainous area in the county. The locations of these mountainous areas, and the minimum elevations of the mountain overlay district that apply to them~ are shown on the map approved by the board of supervisors entitled "Proposed Mountain Overlay District Elevation Map, dated April 1, 1998." Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31 ;2.2. Building permits. The zoning administrator shall review each application for a building permit to ensure that the building or structure proposed =-,o ,,:-, ~,ccord~,-~cs "v,,L,,'="- '~'-,,,~ t~rm: complies with the requirements of this ofdiflaftee chapter. 8 Draft: March 31, 1998 Each applicant shall submit the followinq information to the zoning administrator for review prior to issuance of a buildinq permit: ---'=--n* "h-~l-rovldA if Each ~.~.~,,,...~,. o, .~ ~. ~ no part of the land is within the mountain overlay district, a copy of the most recent plat of record of the land to be built upon unless no such plat exists, in which case the application shall provide a copy of the most recent deed description thereof. If the land is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: Evidence which establishes that the location of the buildinq site on the lot or parcel complies with sections 4.2, 30.8.4 and 30.8.5 of this chapter. Evidence demonstratinq such compliance shall be either: Ii) a final plat approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance; or ('ii) if the lot or parcel was created'prior to the date of adoption of the subdivision ordinance, then a depiction on a boundary survey prepared by a professional enqineer or land surveyor which shows the location of the buildinq site on the lot or parcel; the boundary survey shall be accompanied by written verification siclned by a professional enqineer or land surveyor statinq that the buildinq site upon which the structure will be constructed complies with all of the buildinq Site requirements of this chapter; and Evidence from the department of enctineering and public works that an erosion and sediment control plan or an aqreement in lieu of a plan has been approved, or that neither is required. 3 Any other information which the zoning administrator may deem necessary for consideration of the application No permit to construct, reconstruct, .enlarge, extend, expand Or structurally alter a structure shall be issued: I'.'c. psrmJto,-~'-",~,,, ~,~'-- ,oo~,~,.: ..... ~ f =For any construction for which a site ~ plan is required to be approved ~" accordance with section 32.0 of this ~ chapter, unless and until ~ the site plan~,,~,,-~-" ,,~,~ ~ .... b~n s~ =is approved. Thereafter, any item shown on ~ the plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie to be in a .... ~ ....... :'~ '~ t~rm~ compliance with the requirements of this ~ chapter; or 9 Draft: March 31, 1998 For any construction on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district, unleSs and until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this chapter, and in particular sections 4.2.1,4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 30.8.4 and 30.8.5, and the water protection ordinance. In determinin9 such compliance, the zoninq administrator shall consult with the department of planninq and community development and the department of enqineering and public works, who shall advise the zoninq administrator as to whether such requirements of this chapter have been satisfied. "The department of enqineerinq-and, public works shall also advise the zoninq administrator as to whether the requirements of the water protection ordinance have been satisfied. If the proposed building or use is in conformity with the provisions of this ~ chapter, a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the zoning administrator. One (1) copy of the d¢awing shall be returned to the applicant with the permit. I:\GEN ERAL\S HARE~AS CALA~MTN 10.ORD 1 0 ATTACHMENT C Draft: May 28, 1998 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By'the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained by adding sections 4.2.01, 30.8, 30.8.1, 30.8.2, 30..8.3, 30.8,3.1, 30.8.3.2, 30.8.4, 30.8.5, 30.8'.6, 30.8.7 and 30.8.8, and by amending sections 3.0, 4:2.1, 4,2.3, 4.2.3.1,4.2.3.2, 4.2.6.2 and 31.2.2, as follows: By Adding New: Article Ii. Basic Regulations -Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 30.8. Sec. 30.8.1. Sec. 30.8.2. Sec. 30.8.3. Sec. 30.8.3.1. Sec. 30.8.3.2. Sec. 30.8.4. Sec. 30.8.5. Sec. 30.8.6. Sec. 30.8.7. Sec. 30.8.8. Mountain overlay district. Intent. Establishment of district boundaries. Permitted uses. By riqht. By special use permit. Location of lots and buildinq sites. Private roads. Exempt structures. Relief from district requirements. Grandfathered dwelling units. By Amending: Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.0. Definitions. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.2.1. Sec. 4.2.3. Sec. 4.2.3.1. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Sec. 4.2.6.2. Building site required. Location of structures and improvements. Placement on building site. Slope restrictions. Exception for existing lots. Draft: May 28, 1998 Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2. Building permits. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article i. General Provisions Section 3.0. Definitions. Building site: A contiquous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either United States Geoioclic Survey topoctraphic survey maps (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county' engineer to be of superior accuracy, and which does not include land which is: (i) under water; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) within the one hundred (100) year flood plain of a natural stream identified on a site plan or on a plat; or ('iv) within a stream buffer identified in the water protection ordinance except as otherwise allowed therein. Land disturbing activity: Any land chancle which may result in soil erosion from w~ter or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearinq, qradinch excavatinq, transportincl and fillincl of.land. peak: The uppermost elevation of a land formation within the mountain overlay district which rises at least twenty (20) feet above the surrounding land, as delineated on United States Geologic Survey topoqraphicsurve¥ maps. Ridge area: All land within one hundred (100) vertical feet of, and including, the ridgeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Ridgeline: The uppermost line created by connecting the peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, and from which land declines in elevation on at least two (2) sides, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Article I1. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.0. General Regulations. Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments. Each embankment constructed on a lot or parcel in order to establish a driveway, accessway, or building pad, which the county enqineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of two (2) feet or greater, shall be subiect to the following:. The constructed embankment shall not have a gradient which exceeds two I2) feet of horizontal distance for each one' (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1). Notwithstanding subsection (a), durinq construction the county engineer may authorize a constructed embankment with a gradient not exceedinq one and one-half (1.5) feet of horizontal distance for each one. (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (1.5~.1) if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that: (i) extenuatinq circumstances exist; and (ii) equal or qreater water.quality and land stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complying with subsection (al. For purposes of this subsection, "extenuating circumstances" shall mean such thinqs as rock and other existing physical site features. Buildinq size, location and other factors that are primarily the proprietary interest of the. owner are not, in and of themSelves, justification for approval of a modification of the 2:1. clradient limitation. This determination may be made prior to construction in cases where the owner provides to the county enqineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient to enable the county engineer to make a decision. The owner shall .submit to the county enqineer all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county enqineer shall identify all land stabilization measures that must be installed as a condition ot grantinq the authorization provided in this subsection; provided that, in areas of a lot or parcel which the county engineer determines to be predominantly rock, the county enqineer may qrant authorization without requidnq land Stabilization measures. This section 4.2.01 shall not apply to any constructed embankment established as part of a public improvement project of a state or federal agency. Sec. 4.2.1. Building site required. No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site. For purposes ~,, ,,,,o o~,,,,~,,,, 3 Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 4.2.3. Location of structures and improvements. Except as otherwise permitted pursue, hr to authorized by section 4.2.2 and section 4.2.6, the provisions of this section 4.2.3_ shall apply to the location of any structure for whiCh a permit is required ,cmde~ bv the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site de~ plan lyd~uef~--to required by sect[on 32.0 of this ~ chapter. Sec. 4.2.3.1.. Placement on building site. No structure or improvement, other than driveways, public utility lines and appurtenances, fences, and stormwater management facilities,, shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building .site. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Slope restrictions, No structur% o~ improvement, nor each land disturbing activity to establish such structure or improvement, shall be located on slopes of twenty-five (25)percent or greater, except as otherwise permitted under section 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.6.2 Exception for existing lots or parcels. Except as provided in sections 30.8.4.b:1 and 30.8.4.b.2 of this chapter, Aany lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; provided that section 4.2.3.2 shall apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall contain adequate land area in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent of for the location of such structure. For the 4 Draft: May 28, 1998 purposes of this section'a mobile home shall be deemed a single-family detached' dwelling unit. Article I!!. District Regulations Sec. 30.8. Mountain overlay district Sec. 30.8.1. Intent The mountain overlay district is intended to protect and promote those resources characteristic of, or dependent on, the mountainous reqions of the county, and includes protectinq water quality and public drinkinq water reservoir capacity, promoting soil conservation and the conservation of forest resources, plant habitat, animal habitat, and scenic values associated with the mountains of the county, protectinq and promotinq the economic impact of these resources and tourism, and promotincl public safety, by, among other thincls, controllinq land disturbinq activities in mountain areas that can contribute to or be impacted by debris flows and providincr that roads be designed and constructed to accommodate the passaqe of fire and emergency vehicles. In establishinq the mountain overlay district, the board of supervisors finds that mountain areas are unique and distinct from the lower elevations of the county that also may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature,, are a system of slopes that extend for qreater distances than critical slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper. it is the intent of the board of supervisors that the boundaries of the mountain overlay district encompass those mountainous areas .of the county at and above the seven hundred (700~, eiqht hundred (800), nine hundred (900), one thousand (1,000) or one thousand two hundred (1,200) foot elevations, and that the applicable minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district shall depend on the location of the mountainous area in the county, as shown on the official zoning map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Sec.' 30.8.2. Establishment of district boundaries, The boundaries of the mountain overlay district, the ridcle areas,.and the ridgelines are identified on, and established by, the official zoning map approved by the board of supervisors and administered by the zoning administrator. Sec. 30.8.3. Permitted uses. 5 Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 30.8.3.1. By rioht._ The uses identified as beinq permitted by riqht in the underlying zoninq district shall be permitted in the mountain overlay district by right. Sec. 30.8.3.2. By special use permit. The uses identified as being allowed by a special use permit in the underlying zoninq district shall be allowed in the mountain overlay district only by a special use permit approved .by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: Sec. 30.8.4. Location of lots and bUildinq sites. a_.. Each lot or parcel created.shall comply with the followinq: No lot or parcel shall be entirely within a ridqe area. The buildinq site on the.lot or parcel shall be located outside of a ridge area. The buildinq site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of the mountain overlay district if a buildinq site exists outside of the mountain overlay district. Each eXistinq lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district shall comply with the followinq: The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of the ridge area, unless: (i) the lot or parcel is entirely within the ridge area, or the lot or parcel is both within and without the ridge area but the only buildina site is within the ridqe area; and ('ii) the buildinq site is'for the first single family dwellinq unit on the lot or parcel. The buildinq site on the lOt or parcel shall be located outside of the mountain overlay district, unless the lot or parcel is entirely within the mountain overlay district, or the lot or parcel is both within and without the mountain overlay district but the only buildinq site is within the mountain overlay district. 6 Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 30.8.5. Private roads. In addition to any other requirement for a private road approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance, any part of a private road which is located' Within the mountain overlay district shall aisc comply with the following standards. Each embankment constructed, which the county enqineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of two ('2) feet or greater, shall be subiect to the followinq: .__:., The constructed embankment shall not have a qradient which exceeds two (2) feet of, horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fa I (2:1).. Notwithstandinq subsection ('a~(1), durinq construction, the county engineer may authorize a constructed embankment with a qradient not e)cceeding one and one-half (1.5) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall ('1.5:1) if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county enqineer that: (i) extenuatinq circumstances exist; and (ii) equal or greater water quality and land Stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complyinq with subsection (a)(1). For purposes of this subsection, "extenuatinq circumstances" s hall mean such things as rock and other existing physical site features. This determination may be made prior to construction in cases where the owner provides to the county enqineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient to enable the county engineer to make a decision. The owner shall submit to the county enclineer all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county engineer shall identify all land stabilization measures that must be installed as a condition of qranting the authorization provided in this subsection; provided that, in areas of the private road which the coUnty engineer determines to be predominantly rock, the county enqineer may qrant authorization without requiring land stabilization measures. b_. The radius for the horizontal curvature of a private road shall be forty (40) feet or greater on centerline, except for that portion of the road which is a turnaround or a parking space. Sec. 30.8.6. Exempt structures. The followinq structures within the mountain overlay district shall be exempt from any requirement of sections 30.8.4 and 31.2.2.a of this chapter: 7 Draft: May 28, 1998 An accessory buildinq of less than five hundred (500) square feet of interior floor area, not including porches; b_._ A structure, which is not a buiidinq, less than twenty feet in heiaht; c_. A structure used exclusively for production agricultural or forestal purposes; A tower used for the purpose of supportinq one or more antennae for radio, television, microwave or wireless telecommunications. Sec. 30.8.7. Relief from district requirements. A lot or parcel, or any part thereof, shown on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2 to be within the mountain overlay district or the ridqe area shall not be subiect to the requirements of this section 30.8, section 31 .-2.2.a.2.a, or section 31.2.2.b.2, if the owner of the lot or parcel demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county enqineer that it. is below the applicable minimum elevation or outside of the ridqe area, as provided herein. a_. In order to make such a demonstration, the owner shall submit to the county enqineer a certificate from a licensed land surveyor that the lot or parcel, or part thereof, is below the applicable minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district as described in section 30.8.1., or outside of the ridge area. The certification shall be based upon datum which coincides with United States Geoloqical Survey 1927 North American datum,with benchmark acceptable to the county enaineer. Sec. 30.8.8. Grandfathered dwellinq units. The provisions of thiS section 30.8 shall not apply to any single family dwelling unit legally existinq on' June 10, 1998. Such dwellinq units shall not be deemed to be nonconforming dwellinq units because of their inability to meet the requirements of this section 30.8. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2. Building permits. The zoning administrator shall review each application for a building permit to ensure that the building or structure proposed,o =~ 'in sccor~s,r,c~ '"='"v,,~,, '~-,, ,~ t~rm,,c, complies with the requirements of this ~ chapter. 8 Draft: May 28, 1998 Each applicant shall submit the followincl information to the zoning, administrator for review prior to issuance of a building permit: ,,~,~,,,,.~,, ,, o, ,,,,, ~,, ~,,,,~ If no part of the land is within the mountain overlay district, a copy of the most recent plat of record of the land to be built upon.unless no such plat exists, in which case the application shall provide a copy of the most recent deed description thereof. If the land is'located within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: Evidence which establishes that the location of the building site on the lot or parcel complies with sections 4.2 and 30.8.4 of this chapter. Evidence demOnstratinq such compliance shall be either: (i) a final plat approved pursuantto the subdivision ordinance; or (ii/ if the lot or parcel was created pdor to the date of adoption of the subdivision ordinance, then a depiction on a boundary survey prepared bY a professional enclineer or land surveyor which shows . the location of the buildinq site on the lot or parcel; the boundary survey shall be accompanied by written verification signed by a professional enqineer or land surveyor stating that the building site upon which the structure will be constructed complies with all of the building site requirements of this chapter; and Evidence from the department of engineering and public works that an erosion and sediment control plan or an aqreement in lieu of a plan has been approved, or that neither is required. Any other information which the zoning administrator may deem necessary for consideration of the apphcat~on ,,,~,y ~, ~,~,~,, ~,, No permit to construct, reconstruct, enlarqe, extend, expand or structurally alter a structure shall be issued: ,, ..... ;, -~--,, -: ..... -~ f For any construction for which a site ~ plan is required to be approved by *~ accordance with section 32.0 of this ~ chapter, unless and until such the site Plan~,~",=,, ~, ,=,~ .... b~,, ~o =is approved. Therea~er, any item shown on s~ch the plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie to be in ---=- -=~ ,,, ...... ~,,,,o com ance with the requirements of this 9 Draft: May 28, 1998 For any conStruction on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district, unless and until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this chapter, and in particular sections 4.2.1,4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2 and 30.8.4, and the water protection ordinance. In determining such compliance, the zoninq administrator shall consult with the department of planninq and community development and the department of enqineerinq and public works, who shall advise the zoninq administrator as to whether such requirementS of this' chapter have been satisfied. The department of enqineednq and public works shall also advise the zoninq administrator as to whether the requirements of the water protection ordinance have been satisfied. If the proposed building or use is in conformity with the provisions of this ~ chapter, a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the zoning administrator. One (1) copy of the drawing shall be returned to the applicant with the permit. C:\MARY\SCALA\MTN 11PC.ORD 1 0 ATTACHMENT D 'County of Albemarle Proposed Mountain Protection Plan FINAL REPORT Mountain Protection Committee August 1, 1996 Proposed Mountain Protection Plan Where has Nature spread so rich a mantle under the eye? Mountains, forests, rocks, rivers. With what majesty do we there ride above the storms! How sublime to look down into the workhouse of nature, to see her clouds, hail, snow, rain, thunder, all fabricated at our feet!. And the glorious Sun, when rising as if out of a distant water, just gilding the tops of the mountains, and giving life to all nature. --Thomas.Jefferson on Albemarle's mountains FINAL REPORT Mountain Protection Committee August 1, 1996 MOUNTAIN PROTECTION COMMITTEE The Mountain Protection Committee consisting of 12 citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors, met' regularly from June, 1995 through July, 1996. The Committee reviewed existing County ordinances and regulations to assess the degree to which these public values are adequately protected at present. The County attorney as well as the Piedmont Environmental Council's staff attorney and Page Gilliam, a member of the Mountain Protection Committee and an attorney, reviewed the constitutional issue of taking without just compensation and Virginia legislative authority for local mountain protection. Other presentations were made by Natural Resource Conservation Service, Virginia Department of Forestry, County Department of Planning and Community Development, Department of Zoning, Building Inspections Department, the Water Resource Manager, and the County Design Planner. A member of the University of Virginia's Department of Astronomy gave a presentation and conducted a field trip on outdoor lighting and dark night sky as a natural resource. The Committee identified resources present in the mountainous areas of Albemarle County that it is in the public interest to protect: · public safety · soil · water quality and quantity · forest and agricultural resources · plant and animal habitat · scenic resources and their economic impact · dark sky · tourism The Committee reviewed ordinances pertaining to mountain protection from other localities in Virginia. The Clarke County Mountain Land Plan (1994) provides the closest parallel in Virginia, seeking to protect, "forest resources, surface water quality, ground water, wildlife habitats and ecosystems, scenic-values, and well-sited development compatible with the above five resources." The Committee also considered the balance between public values and the private interests of the · mountain landowners in developing recommendations. INTRODUCTION Albemarle;s mountains have been and continue to be a source of income, natural resources, scenic beauty, and recreation. In fact, mountains may be said to define much of the character of Albemarle County. Directly and indirectly, the County's mountainous areas provide tens of millions of dollars to the local community in employment, tourism, and agricultural and forest products. Beyond the economic benefits, the mountains provide important natural functions, such as provision of clean water, contributions to healthy air, and habitats for many of the County's plant and animal species. And, to many residents, the blue backdrop of the mountains gives Albemarle Count~' 'in large measure its "sense of place," that quality which makes this area a special place to its residents and visitors and consistently ranked among the top places to live in the United States. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Delineati6n of a Mountain Overlay District describing the area containing the critical resources of the mountains, and recommendations which ensure health and safety of the mountain area's residents and control possible degradation of County's resources from activities within the District. These recommendations are applicable exclusively within the Mountain Overlay District. 2. Recommendation of County-wide application: Lighting Ordinance. ADDITIONAL PLANNING TOOLS Recommendations in this category assert the fundamental premise that planning for a sustainable fUture of the County must examine the County, its resources and developmental needs, from a comprehensive point of view. These strategies for the protection of mountain resources benefiting the County and City of Charlottesville proceed from the assumption of an interrelation between healthy rural and healthy urban areas. ALBEMARLE'S MOUNTAIN RESOURCES Albemarle's mountains are unique areas of the County which are distinguished by the natural resources and physical conditions listed below. Such resources and conditions are found in other areas of the County, but only in the mountains do they occur in such combination, as extensively, and to such extremes. Critical Slopes: In Albemarle~s mountains continuous critical slopes in excess, of 50% can be found for distances of up to one mile, and in some cases, longer Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountain areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Soil erosion,, surface water runoff, and septic system, contamination are amplified in these areas. Soil: Forest cover is the optimum land use for minimizing soil erosion and maximizing water quality. Soils on steep slopes are typically more erodible than in other areas. Inaccessibility and. isolated location of development sites in mountain areas necessitate longer driveways and access roads over more highly erodible soils than in other areas of the County. Such driveways and access roads disturb many times more land area than a dwelling itself. The United States Department of Agriculture states in Handbook 537, "Both the length and steepness of the land slope substantially affect the ~ate of soil erosion by water." (p. 12) This Handbook reports that, other variables such as cover and soil type being equal, soil loss on a slope of 20 degrees is 3 1/2 times greater than soil loss on an equivalent slope of 9 degrees. When the length of slope is lengthened from the sample 72 feet to 600 feet, as in"a mountain slope, the soil loss is 10 times as great. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan: "Soils are a natural resource which require proper use and preservation...Improper use of soils may result in accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, ground or surface water pollution, landslides, flooding, drainage problems, failed septic systems, construction problems, and unproductive agricultural and forestal lands." (p.75) Water Quality and Quantity: Sedimentation of Albemarle's public drinking water reservoirs in addition to increased demand will necessitate the building; of the 26 million dollar Buck Mountain Reservoir before 2040. The South Rivanna Reservoir loses 13 million gallons of storage capacity annually as a result of sedimentation. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir, by contrast, loses no appreciable capacity. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan: "Goal: Protect the County's surface water and ground water supplies for the benefit of Albemarle Coun'tyl the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests... Protection of water resources is of vital importance to Albemarle County and Virginia in general. Albemarle's location adjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides both the advantage of clean headwaters, and a responsibility to protect them The County's Rural Areas play a crucial role in water supply protection. .. The maintenance of pasture and especially forestal areas is generally beneficial to water quality." (p.57) Forest and Agricultural Resources: Now that The Eastern Deciduous Forest, laro_el¥ during the 18th and 19th centuries, is returning, the mountains of the CounD, are almost entirely in forest cover, with the remaining acreage in orchards and pasture. The principal threat to the County's mountain forests and farms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residenfiaI land use. The County's Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee states. "Continued forest frag~mentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of the forest industr,' in Albemarle County...As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres, are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the prbbtem." A viable forest industry is an essential economic incentive to maintenance of forestland. The Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County places agriculture and forestry, above residential land use in importance in the County's Rural Areas. The Mountain areas are zoned almost exclusively Rural Areas. The Rabun-Myersville-Catoctin soil association on the Southwest-Carters Mountain chain is among the most productive hardwood forest soils in the Commonwealth. A Mountain Orchard Near Covesville Photograph courtesy of G. Carleton Ray Those declines are caused by several factors, most importantly, fragmentation of habitaT-- the dividing of large areas into smaller parcels, and the resulting disruption of forest cover. Albemarle County Comprehen. sive Plan: "Wildlife is a renewable natural resource which requires both. protection and harvesting for proper management. The mountainous are~'s of the Countx, contain the more dense populations of wildlife..." (p.75) Scenic Resources and their economic impact: Atbemafle County is well known for its scenic character. Maintaining this character is important to Current residents and to prospective residents and tourists. A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important to County residents. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan states, "Objective: Preserve the County's scenic resources as being essential to the Cou,nty's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life. (p.83)... An "issue that is of importance to'visual impact is the horizon. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural 'horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area."(p.87) . , ~ : UVA ObserVato~:Van :mOuntain :phot0gr h Courtesy ~f G. Carteton Ray Dark Sky: Excessive outdoor lighting in the urban and developed :areas of the County is increasing. The natural resource/of dark night .Sky ;and ':its importance '[o the University's Observatories has been.insufficiently considered in Planning processes lin the County. Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed'outdOor lighting amounts ito more than a billion dollars a year (International Dark Sky AssOciation, 1990) Poorly designed outdoor lighting:creates glare, 7 HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Mountain resource protection efforts began in 1971 with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan. One of the Plan's six Goals was: Respect conservation values, including the preservation of stream valleys, mountain slopes, watersheds and other open space areas. The Land Use Plan delineated the mountains as conservation areas. The Natural Resource Objective was: Albemarle County is rich in natural resources which include beautiful stream valleys, scenic mountains, abundant woodlands, wildlife' habitations, and mineral deposits. All of these resources are irreplaceable assets which deserve recognition, protection, and proper management. A strategy was: Mountain slopes of 15% or greater should.be built upon only under carefull~y exercised controls; slopes of 25% or greater should not be allowed to develop. The 1977 Comprehensive Plan contained the following Goal for the Conservation of Natural Resources: Conserve the County's environment and the balance of its natural ecology. This requires the conservation of water supply impoundment watersheds, the best agricultural land, mineral deposits, forests, steep slopes, hilltops/ridges, open space vistas, water quality in streams, and flood hazard areas. These areas should be protected from intensive commercial, industrial, and residential development. A map of Conservation Areas included hilltops, major ridge lines, slopes over 15%, streams/rivers and their valleys, and the Rivanna Reservoir watershed. In addition, conservation measures were also proposed for the County's woodlands. Hillside development standards were proposed on slopes exceeding 15%, which included road construction, grading and drainage standards. In 1980 a new zoning ordinance was adopted, which included the Rural Areas zoning district to restrict rural development rights, and the critical slopes provisions. Nearly every mountain is zoned Rural Areas, and is affected by the development rights restrictions, except two small peaks in the Urban Growth Area. The critical slopes provisions require a building site, a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%. The regulation is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain ar.eas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that' such development of critical slopes may result in: rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the Environmental concerns include the loss to development of a unique and beneficial natural environmem, and disruption of the natural balance of soits, slope and vegetation. While detailed studies have not been undertaken at this time, ir is anticipated that due to the location of generally unspoiled and extensive forests, together with a relatively small human and domestic animal population, mountains may be areas of comparative significance as "natural areas" and "wildlife habitats." Mountains also provide areas of unique soils suitable for orchards and vinevards between elevations of 800 - 1800 feet. Environmental benefits of undisturbed forests often associated with mountains include increased groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and climate modulation. In addition, concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountainous regions due m generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Issues related to soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas. EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The mountain land is largely within the Rural Areas Zoning Classificati6n which permks 5 small lot divisions per parcel with residual acreage divisible into lots of 21 acres or larger. Building requires a 30,000 sq. foot ske of less than 25% slope; there are no current regulations limiting the slopes upon which driveways may be built or the steepness of driveways. The Southwest Mountains are recognized as a National and State Rural HiStoric District. No land use regulations accompany that designation. The Open Space Plan identifies the mountains as one of four major open space systems and defines the mountains by designated elevation contour lines. The Plan recommends adoption of regulations to protect mountains. 11 MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT ELEVATION · 1000 Ft. OR MORE ~oo Ft. o~ Mo~ ~ ~; 800 Ft. OR MOR~. ?00 Ft. OR ~OR~ RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for a Mountain Overlay Disudct and Lighting Ordinance require specific amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Counw Code. Subdivision Ordinance and Erosion and Sediment COntrol Ordinance. The legal basis for Se proposed changes is Virginia Code Section 15.1 - 489, "Purpose of Zoning Ordinances" (see Appendix 2). 1. MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE Section 30.7 MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT !. -Designate as_ Mountain Overlay District these lands identified_ on the Concept Map o___f the 1992 Open Space Plan as '.'Mountains" and listed in the Table entitled "Mountains."(See Appendix 1) Purpose and Intent: The purpose of designating a Mountain Overlay District is io identify those areas of the Coun~ within which it is in the public interest to enact supplemental regUlations or review in order to protect those resources characteristic of or dependent on the mountainous regions of the County: public safety, water quality, public drinking water reservoir capacit)~, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values associated with the mountains and their economic impact, and tourism. Application: The boundaries of this District are intended to encompass mountain areas of critical slopes 'and areas aboVe such critical sl6pes that are highly visible and may~ be dependent for access on the areas of critical slope beneath. The District's boundaries are delineated by contour line in the map labeled Mountain Overlay District and attached hereto and also found in the Albemarle County. Open Space plan; the mountains to which the Districi is applicable and' contom: line above which the District applies are listed in the table entitled "Mountains." Definitions: For purposes of this' section, "Ridge" and "Crest" shall be defined as in the N.C. Gen. Stat. Sect. 113A-206: North Carolina's "Ridge Law" (1983): "Ridge": the elongated crest or series of crests at the apex or uppermost point of intersection between two opposite slopes or sides of a mountain, and includes all land within 100 vertical feet below the elevation of any portion of such line or surface along the crest" as shown on attached map. 13 "Crest": the uppermost line of a mountain or chain of mountains from which land falls away on at least two sides to a lower elevation or elevations." Permitted Uses: By Right: Uses'permitte0 by..ri_'ght shall include al! uses permi.tted by right in the._ugder!ying districts in accordance with the provisions hereinafter delineated. By Special Use Permit: Uses permitted by special use permit shall include alt uses permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts in accordance with the provisions hereinafter delineated. Exceptions: 1) Agricultural buildings and associated farm and timber roads 2) Buildings of less than 500 square feet of interior space not including porches. 3) Structures other than buildings of a height less than 20 feet, sach as gazebos, water towers. Notes: Communication towers are currently permitted by Special Use Permit. The Committee discourages towers in the Mountain Overlay District except in existing tower farms, and supports the requirement of a Special Permit. Regulations: a) Erosion and sediment control permit shall .be required for all driveways and housesin the Overlay District. Because construction of driveways often disturbs large areas on steep slopes, the effects of erosion during construction in these areas -are ParticularlYhcutel Making all driveWay construction meet the criteria of the Erosion and Sediment Contr6i' oi~dinance'and ~°mpl~' ¥}th the provisions of that ordinance will substantially reduce on-site erosion and off-site depositipn. Currently, a soil erosion agreement, and' if necessary a soil erosion plan are .reqUired to be submitted for the ~0nstmctipn of any single familY dwelling. This proposed ordinance would require a plan instead of an agreement to be submitted, and would include the driveway with the house; however, field staking of driveway centerlines and culvert locations will be acceptable instead of driveway plans and profiles. Identical amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance is included for clarity in these recommendations. Benefit/Cost: Erosion control does add to construction cost, but this cost, as'in other areas where erosion control is required, is simply a part of the cost of building responsibly. The benefit to downstream water quality and soil protection for future generations far outweighs the cost.of these temporary construction measures. b) Ridge protection :~ Buildings or structures shall be constructed in a manner that no site disturbance occurs upon the Ridge unless it can be demonstrated that such construction would 14 better protect the above-named mountain resources than its alternative, or unless there is no alternative to location on the Ridge. This provision is intended to prevent the development of concentrated runoff high on the mountains which may have negative impact on soil stability and water quatiB, below. In addition. preservation c;f the natural horizon is a stated objective of the County's Comprehensive Plan (p.87) and is consistent with Va. Code Sect. 15.1-489 which includes "facilitat[ing] the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community" and "preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment" among the enabl ed purposes of zoning regulations. Benefit/Cost: Little economic impact will be felt because most of the areas defined as Ridee are not currently accessible for building activity. The small economic gain of the building on the ~,i dge is offset many times by the damage inflicted on the lands of those below. c) Building sites: Building on parcels partially inside the Mountain Overlay Distri~i shall Occu, on the portion of the parcel outside the District unless it is demonstrated that a building site i:: not available outside the Distric~ This provision is intended to direct development away from th~ most environmentally sensitive and visible portions of those parcels partially within the Mountain District without affecting the 'number of development rights on the parcel. Development in remote locations is most costly to the County in terms of providing services. Benefit/Cost: This provision would benefit soil conservation, water quality and scenic resources by directing development away from environmentally sensitive areas, and lessening the length and impact of private driveways traversing steep slopes. It would limit the danger of wildfire and landslide. Administration would require a minimal amount of added stafftime. d) Allocation of Development Rights: Subdivision of a parcel partially inside the Mountain Overlay 'District shall-allocate all development rights for small l°ts to the portion of the parcel outside the Mountain Overlay District unless it can be demonstrated that legal building sites outside the District do not exist, This provision is intended to direct development away from the most environmentally sensitive portions of those parcels partially within the Mountain District without affecting the number of development rights on the parcel. Benefit/Cost: This provision woUld benefit soil conservation, water quality and scenic resources by directing development away from environmentally sensitive and visual portions of parcelS, and lessening the length and impact of private driveways traversing steep slopes. It would limit the danger of wildfire and landslide. 15 e) Subdivision: Where alternatives exist prior to subdivision, new parcels of land shall not be created which would: I} create no alternative to location of a building site on a Ridge: 2~ create parcels which preclude building.sites from being located outside the District: and. 3~ create parcels which preclude locatiOn of small lots outside the District. This provision is intended to prevent what would otherwise be avoidable impacts t9 public safe~; arid Wel?~i~ by creating~ Situafi'0ns: in which there would~ be-nO alternative bUt to build in contradiction with the intent of this ordinance. AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE All final Plats within the Mountain Overlay District shall show one or more building sites of at least 30,000 square feet and be verified by a registered surveyor to meet all the criteria of allowable building sites. These building areas shall be described according to their location within the boundary, survey.. Buildable area5 shown on prelimina~ plats are not presently shown on the final plat. Therefore, the building inspector has no way of knowing if a house is being built in the area designated on the preliminary, plat. because the building permit is issued according to the final plat, which shows no topography and does' not locate the area designated as buildable on the preliminary plat. Further, the buildable areas are often identified on preliminary plats from County topography, which is 20-foot contour interval, interpolated to 5 foot contour interval -- too general to be reliable for'this use. Benefit/Cost: The minimal expense of showing the buildable areas on the final plat would be offset by the assurance that th~ law can be efficiently enforced. AMENDMENTS TO ERosION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE a) Erosion and sediment control permit shall be required for all driveways and houses in the Overlay District. ~ Because construction of driveways often disturbs large areas on steep slopes, the effects of erosion during construction in these areas are particularly acute. Making all driveway construction meet the criteria of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and comply with the provisions of that ordinance will substantially reduce on-site erosion and off-site deposition. Currently, a soil erosion agreement, and if necessary a soil erosion plan are required to be submitted for the construction of any single family dwelling. This proposed ordinance would require a plan instead of an agreement to be submitted, and would include the driveway with the house; however, field staking of driveway centedines and culvert locations will be acceptable instead of driveway plans and profiles. Identical amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance is included for clarity in these recommendations. 16 Benefit/Cost: Erosion control does add to construction cost, but this cost, as in other areas where erosion control is required, is simply a part of the cost of building responsibly. The benefit to downstream water quality and soil protection for future generations far outweighs the cost of these temporary construction measures. b) Land Stability_: No slopes shall be created, that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining vvalls. revetments; or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County.' Engineer are employed, This provision is intended to minimize soil erosion and prevent landslides The ratio of 2:1 is the steepest slope permitted for bank construction by the County, and by VDOT in the subdivision street standards. Slopes that are steeper are not stable and can result in erosion, sedimentation of streams and water supply, as well as damage to life and property through landslides. For reasons stated abOVe, these problems are particularly acute in the mountain areas. In areas of predominantly rock thi~ gradient may be increased to 1.5:1 where acceptable to the County Engineer. Benefit/Cost: This provision should assist in controlling the amount of sediment flowing into downstream waterways including reservoirs, and thereby improving or maintaining water quality throughout the County and beyond, and minimizing the danger of mud slides in mountain ar~as. In the Steepest areas, retaining walls or revetments may be a more viable alternative to increased width of grading. Such walls add to the cost of construction. These areas are likely to be the least suitable for development due to inaccessibility, cost of services and other construction costs. c) Run-off Control: Water from ditches, storm-drains and rooftops and impervious surface~ shall be released 'into natural streams or watercourses as defined as "adequate'' per the "Virginia ErosiOn and Sediment Handbook." This provision is intended to control flooding and soil erosion and creation of gullies caused by swiftly moving, and therefore highly eroding water run-off, as well as to minimize degradation in water quality and deposition of sediment downstream. Benefit/Cost: This provision would reduce the deposition of sediment onto downstream properties and into the reservoirs. The latter diminishes their capacity and reduce the amount of treatment needed for drinking water especially during rainy weather. The cost of engineering run-off control so as to comply with this provision should be more than returned in protection from property damage caused by swiftly moving water. d) Driveways within the Mountain Overlay District shall be built with side 'slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 (horizontal slope: vertical slope) or flatter, The steepest allowable side slopes (except in rock cuts) on subdivision streets to be accepted into the State Secondary Road system is 2:1 (i.e., 2 feet of horizontal distance for each one foot of vertical rise or fall). Slopes steeper than this have proven to be unstable over time. Unstable side slopes lead to erosion, deposition of sediment downstream, and in extreme cases, dangerous conditions. These problems are particularly acute in the mountain areas. Where 2:1 side slopes are 17 not feasible, retaining walls, revetments, or other slope stabilization methods acceptable to the County Engineer must be employed. In areas of predominantly rock this gradient max' be increased to 1.5:1 where acceptable to the County Engineer. Benefit/Cost: Building roads and driveways with side slopes of 2:1 or flatter max' cost more initially. If long-term maintenance and down-slope damage are taken into account, it' is cheaper to build with stable slopes from th~ sta~- ¢) Minimum allowable fadius for horizontal curvature of.private roads and driveways shall be 40 feet. Any curve tighter than 40-foot radius on center-line is too tight for straight-bodied trucks, and fire trucks. AccesS to residences in mountain areas is of great concern to adjacent mountain property owners and the general pUblic, because fires in wooded mountain areas can spread quickly, with catastrophic results. Mountain areas usually present no alternatives to a single driveway available to an emergency vehicle. Benefit/Cost: Providing access to straight-bodied emergency vehicles is an overwhelming benefit when compared to the small and short-term saving of Constructing curves of.tighter radii. f) Driveways shall disturb no more .than 65 feet in cross-section, · If a'ten-foot wide driveway is built on an existing 3:1(33%) side slope, with 2:1 cut and ill! slopes, it will disturb approximately 65 feet in crOss-section. (See illustration below.) The disruption of.large areas of land is particularly dangerous in mountain areas because the mountains form a large system of steep, usually forested land which may be affected far beyond the limits of individual construction sites. Benefit/Cost: Generally, locating roadways in areas not requiring a large amount of grading is both less expensive, and less disruptive. In those cases where additional measures (e.g., retaining walls) must be taken to avoid large cross-sectional grading, the long-term stability and protection of forest land will outweigh the sh°rt:term cost. ! O' Drivewa 3:! SLope 18 g) Longitudinal gradient on driveways shall not exceed 16%, The virginia Department of Transportation maximum longitudinal gradient allowed in mountainous terrain is 16%. County private road standards for 3-5 lots is 16% maximum. Slopes steeper than this are a danger to all who must use the driveway, including fire. police, other emergency vehicles, and delivery vehicles. While the Committee believes that the Count), would be wise to-institute sucha regulation County-wide, there is an espeCially urgent need to restrict the steepness of driveways in mountainous areas. In the Mountain Overlay. District steep gradients are likely to be much longer and the associated accidents more problematic because of the steep side-slopes and remoteness of driveways. Benefit/Cost."Every effort should be made to locate driveways to minimize grading, len~h, and impact on existing trees; however, the risk to human life in gradients too Steep for safety is too great to consider the relatively small savings of alignment going too directly up a steep slope. 2. COUNTY-WIDE LIGHTING ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT TO COUNTY CODE OR ZONING ORDINANCE Adopt a county-wide ordinance with the following provision: All exterior ~ fixtures .above 5000 lumens .shall be_ ~ shielded. ~ _a 100 watt bulb gives off 1500 lumens). Definition: Fully shielded fixture: means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light .emitted .b_g the fixture, either .directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal. STUDY AND FUTURE ADDITION TO LIGHTING ORDINANCE: Determine maximum allowable foot-candles for each category of use and implement regulations prescribing maximum foot-candles for each category. Note: Action on the above ordinance should not be delayed pending completion of this study, but rather amended when the Study is complete. 19 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION: Develop resolution for Board of Supervisors asking power companies to cease promoting unshielded and inefficient outdoor lighting in the County. The cumulative eft'ect of [igh~ pQl_lu_tion_ from th_e urban and developed areas of the County.has the effect of degrading the dark sky in the mountain areas of the County. This natural resource is particularly important fOr the research conducted at the Observatory on Fan MoUntain. Individual unshielded lights in the mOUntain areas contribUte to the degrading of the dark night sky, and are also highly visible and therefore detrimenta~l to the scenic quality of'the mountains. For these reasons the Mountain Committee finds that a lighting ordinance which is county-wide in scope is necessary to protect the mountain resource' of dark night sky. · Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more than a billion dollars a year. · Poorly 'designed outdoor lighting creates glare, which compromises safety especmlly for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City and degrades the quality of the built environment. · Light pollution in the night sky adversely affects tourism by negatively impactin~ the nocturnal., viewsiied; for example, the view t0 and' from Monticello, Shenandoah National Park, Blue Ridge Parkway. · Poorly designed lighting permits light trespass upon neighbOrs, which is no less intrusive than excessive noise. · Excessive outdoor lighting adversety impacts UVA.'s Observatories, which constitute a unique resource on the east coast. · The dark sky is a scenic resource enjoyed by all Counllg residents for whose degradation there is no compelling economic justification. Rather, the economic benefit of efficient energy use would complement protection of the resource; · Easy. solutions to the problem of poorly designed outdoor lighting are available commercially and are inexpensive. In the long run they save money. ADDITIONAL PLANNING TOOLS The mountainous areas of Albemarle County are not only prominent physical features possessing critical natural resources, but they are also important parts of many human and natural systems in the County and region. Like other County human, cultural and natural resources, they therefore require consideration as components of larger planning issues. Though the Mountain Protection Committee's task is to develop recommendations for the protection of the mountains of the County, the Committee feels that it fails to complete its task if 'it does not suggest that planning roi: the protection of discrete areas or resources, such as the mountains, the urban areas, or the watershed 20 must be integrated with a more systematic approach which provides for the protection of resour:e systems, such as drinking water, economic viability of urban areas, or transportation networks Some of the CoUnty's land use regulations developed with a comparrment-alized approach to land planning may have unintended consequences for protection of its natural resources and Other comprehensive Planning goals of the County. Rural residential parcels (5-20 ac.) too small to farm or timber or serve as habitat, increase sprawl~ put unintended pressure on mountain and agricultural lands. Areas of the County possessing critical resources may require different types of land use restrictions to protect the resource. Segregated land uses may unintentionally increase housino costs, and increase pressure on transportation systems and on agricultural lands in the path o~ proposed new roads. Discussion of natural resource protection, that is, may not be broad enough in ~-scope to suggest effective or equitable solutions. The recommendations which follow attempt to point toward a systematic apprOach to resource protection for Albemarle County. Develop brochure detailing design recommendations in Mountain Area:: Based on the model of Rappahannock COunty'~ brochure, ,'Ridgetop Development," Albemarle should make available to anyone constructing a residence in the Mountain Overlay District a brochure which encourages sensitive site planning. Prospective mountain, residents should be educated regarding both aesthetic and safety considerations: "Being considerate and preserving tho gentle, natural beauty that has drawn us to this county,i' Rappahannock's brochure suggests, "should be paramount in all our minds." See attached brochure in Appendix 3, County_ of Rappahannock: Ridgetop Development. Th~ Mountain Protec~on Committee is willing to draft such a. brochure based in part on information which it has compiled. Invento rYAlbem arle 'County's Natural Heritage Current knowledge of the critical elements of Albemarle's natural resources, including its biological commtmities is spotty and speculative. An inventory of the County's critical natural resources including rare and unique natural resources is needed to provide property owners, planners and County staff with the information to make wise land stewardship decisions. Methods of conducting this assessment and evaluation should be pursued. The Open Space Plan recommends a Nhtural Areas Inventory of designated areas for significant natural communities, their sensitive plant and animal habitats, geologic landmarks, and other.natural features. TJSPARE proposed such an inventory for the five localities of the Planning District. Cover Type Analysis and Habitat Evaluation Procedures assessment are also suggested in the Open Space Plan, which cites the lack of information available about wildlife and aquatic habitat in Albemarle. Support Land Use Assessment Tax The concept of land use assessment tax for forest land, agricultural, horticultural and open space lands should be continued and defended. 21 Rural land in Albemarle County costs taxpayers only $0.21 in coun9; services for eve~' $1.00 ii generates in coun~ real estate tax revenues. Since residential land costs taxpayers more in services that ir generates in tax revenues ($1.16 in costs for every $1.00 in revenues), the undeveloped rural land substantially subsidizes residential use in the county. (Source: Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in Albemarle County; PEC, Tamara Vance, 1984) Transfer of bewe-i~pm-ent i~ights (TDR) The Count3' should continue to request enabling legislation in the General Assembly to permit a TDR program. While the creation of a Mountain Overlay District and proposed revisions to the Subdivision, Erosion Control, and Zoning Ordinances will .reduce many of the problems associated with development in mountain areas, the large number of development fights in the these areas continue to threaten the resources of the mountains. Transfer of Developmem Rights will provide a means for shifting development rights out of the mountains and other Kural Areas while providing rural landowners with a means of profiting fairly from the transfer. George F. Allen, in "Three Proposals Affecting Forestry And Development," Vir~nia's Forests, Summer, 1991, explains TDR's through the following example: "...a landowner in a rural zoned area with 400 acres may be allowed under current zoning to divide his 400 acre parcel into five 2 acre lots and as many 21 acre lots as can fit into the residue, being 18 lots for a total of 23. "If this rural landowner's property were in a designated TDR 'sending' area, then the landowner, in an ideal situation, could voluntarily sell to a developer some of his development fights. Let's say a developer buys 10 of the 23 such TDR's from one rural landowner's 400 acre parcel for $2,000 each: The rUral landowner would receive $20,000 and have only 13 development fights left on his property. The rural landowner's parcel would, probably have a lessened market value, but that is the landowner'S choice'as to what' to do with his or her land. MeanWhile, the developer could use these 10 development rights to increase the density to pack more houses or apartments on land designated as a 'receiving' zone. "The foregoing example is the ideal, positive way that a TDR program would operate. It would be voluntary and to some extent allow the free market concept to operate in a government-created system of land rights." Purchase of Development Rights The County should develop a program to purchase development rights for preservation of agricultural and forest lands, significant plant and animal communities and areas of significance to tourism and recreation. Such a program might be funded frOm real estate transfer tax, cellular phone tax, meals or lo2d2ging tax, grants, or private contributions. Such a program would allow landowners to choose monetary compensation for protecting natural resources of public value. Land in such a prOgram would remain in private ownership and on the tax rolls while serving a public purpose. ¥~rginia Beach hasinitiated such a program, aimina to acquire development rights from 20,000 acres of agricultural lands, funded by 1.5 cents of th} property tax rate and a cellular phone tax. The scenic-mountain landscape has been stated as a factor in the Albemarle and Charlottesville tourism industry. According to state Division of Tourism data, visitors to Albemarle Count, spent $109 million in 1994. A one.percent lodging excise tax would generate $150,000 a year to purchase development rights or conservation easements. Full Cost Accounting and "Revenue Sharing;' IJiscussions of revenue sharing between the County and City should involve a comprehensive approach and include the floWs of benefits and costs in both directions. The City and urban area benefit economically from ecosystem services, notably watershed protection and air quality, provided by rural land of the COunty. Mai or economic contributions accrue to the People of Albemarle and Charlottesville as a result of the natural functions of the forests. A disproportionate share of these values are provided by the mountain forests. For example, forest landowners in the county provide watershed protection for the City\CountY water supply reservoirs. Without the protection of forestcover, particularly on mountain slopes, City and County users Of public water Would be required to divert hundreds of thousands of dollars from other uses to maintain the same level of water quality. Full cost accounting . of the public water resource would show that rural mountain landowners, who receive little or no benefit from the resource, are bearing (subsidizing) this cost for urban residents and users of the public water. Similarly, the mountain forests play a significant role in filtering air, sequestering carbon and other air pollutants and improving air quality. Due to climatic patterns, the mountain forests play a greater role in this function than lowland forests. This function benefits the local economy by reducing expenditures for health care and for anti-pollution measures that would likely be required in the absence of these forests. Albemafle's forests currently store an estimated 19.7 million tons and annually remove 300,'000 additional tons of carbon, as well as numerous other pollutants. Achieving this same level of atmospheric cleansing through anti-pollution measures would cost citizens an estimated $8.4 million dollars that those residents have available for other services and investments due to the role ttmt the mountain forests perform. Efforts that significantly affect the value of mountain forest land for the primary purpose of benefiting the urban area should include incentives, or other strategies. Such full cost accounting is now gaining in recognition in other cities and regions such as New York State. 23 Change in Large Lot Division Size Large Lot Size within the Mountain Overlay District: Change the large lot division size from a minimum of 21 acres to a minimum of 42 acres in the Mountain Overlay District. This l~rov~sion is intended io reduce tl/e-ffagrnentafi0n of ha-b~tat ~iiid of;~iable i~indsdap~reiburce base. Due to the extensive fragmentation of the lowland landscapes into smaller and smaller parcels. the large blocks of forest common to the mountains are growing in importance, especially for "forest interior" species of wildlife that require large areas of forest in which to breed and forage. Manx, of these species are nco-tropical migratory birds which breed in Albemarle's forests and migrate to tropical regions for the winter months: Recent` surveys of these species reveal that many are declining in number. While a number of factors are at play, the fragmentation of forests into-smaller blocks is seen as a potential problem for the long-termsustainabilits,' of these populations. With respect to forestry, the AgricUltural/Forestal- Industries Support Committee's report states, "Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of thet forest industry in Albemarle County .... As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem.'' The U.S. GeologiCal Survey's report, Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the June 27, 1995 Storm in Madison County, Virginia, states that as non-structural hazard mitigation, "Land-use regulations can be used to reduce hazards by limiting the type or mound of development in hazardous areas: A community can zone h'azard-prone areas for open space uses' like parks, grazing or certain types of agriCUlture." The report cites as an example a "'resource management zoning district" created by Sin Mateo CoUnty, California, which limits the number of dwellings to one dWelling Unit per 40 acres. Benefit/Cost: This provision would have significant benefits to wildlife habitat and forest resource base and a minimal impact on the value of parcels lying entirely within the Mountain District whose topography includes sufficient land below 25% in grade to' allow for maximum use of division fights. Subsequent Revew This committee recommends that it reconvene in tWo' years to review the efficacy of the ordinances recommended in this Mountain Protection Plan. 24 APPENDICES Appendix 1 MOUNTAIN CONTOUR LIST The following' named mountains and other unnamed mountains are delineated on the attached Mountain Overlay District map. (USGS quad sheer'locations are noted if names are duplicated). Theq' are defined bx' a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. 700 Foot COntour Stillhouse Mountain Lewis Mountain Mt: Jefferson Southwest Mountains Trevillian ~blfpit Long Sugarloaf Lonesome Broadhead Hightop (Keswick Quad) Walnut Dowell Peters Goodlow Carters Mountain Monticello Patterson Round Top (Alberene Quad) 800 Foot Contour Buck Mountain Piney Mountain (EarlysvilleQuad) Dudley Mountain Britts Piney (Alberene Quad) Ragged Mountains Round Top (Charlottesville West Quad) Bear Den (Charlottesvflle West Quad) Newcomb Woodson 'Gibson (Alberene Quad) Gillums Mountain Turner Mountain 900 Foot Contour Taylor's Mountain Martin's Mountain (Cmzet Quad) Sprouse Mountain Israel Mountain Tom Mountain Gay Mountain Ammonett Mountain Cook Mountain Persimmon Mountain Fan Moun/mn Mount Oliver Appleberry Mountain Shiloh Mountain Brash Mountain Yellow MOuntain Hams Mountain Green Mountain (Free.Union Quad) Cherry Mountain 1000 Foot Contour Boaz Mountains Walnut Top Mountain Heard Mountain Mill Mountain Chalk Mountain Castle Rock Mountain Moses Mountain Massies Mou~_t,~in Long Ann Mountain High Top (Covesville Quad) Burnt MoUntain Sharp .Top Ennis Mountain Round ~op Mountain (Waynesboro East Quad) Turks Mountain Blue Ridge Mountains Scott Bear Den (Waynesboro East Quad) Calf BuCks Elbow Little Yellow Beaver Creek Middle Pasture Fence Pinestand Cedar Big Flat Little Flat Loft County Line Mountain Lick Mountain Fox Mountain Gibson (Brown's Cove Quad) Martins (Brown's Cove Quad) High Top (Brown's Cove Quad) Currant Pigeon Top Mountain Appendix 2 ENABLING LEGISLATION: Sec. 15.1-489 Va. Code: Purpose of zoning ordinances: Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of S.15. 1-427. To these ends, such ordinances shall be designed to give reasonable consideration to each of the following 'purposes. where applicable: (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access, and safety from fire, flood, crime and other dangers; (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets: (iii) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; (iv) to facilitate the provision of adeqUate pOlice 'and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other Public requirements; (v) to protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; (vi) to protect against one or more of the folloWing: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in traVel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; (vii) to encourage .economic development activities that provide desirable emploYment and 'enlarge the tax base; (viii). to provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and future needs of the locality as well asa reasonable proportion of the' current and furore needs of the planning district within which the locality is situated. Such ordinance may also include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water as defined in S. 62.1-255. (Emphasis: references relevant to protection of Albemarle's mountains) m-2 . Appendix 3 County of Rappahannock Ridgetop Development Brochure A-3 ;om?fled b aL~ d-mcht, amon~ ~appahannock ~. ~ q~ Mve recenflq ~rcM~e~ lan~ ~ an~ fdb ~ab ~ar ~e nabral ~rram? Wdl ~bfl~a~ rainfall," ~e, ~n~v~m make ~L repairable, ~erhaF~ f~ a ~aq ~ I~er? Wdl b~ provue qear~ r~nd acce~ ~ [~e and re~ue m L}bdd, tes: Wdl overhead elect, rt,c servtz:e rectuure thr~ cull, mC of' an unswjhl, lq sw~J:h throucjh ?revwuslq wooded t, erram? Is underground service more rel~ble and u'J manq ca.~s not. sl.gnbftcant, lLI .more cod, ILl. ?ar~,icularht I.f cons~ered as a ?ercerrb of LJour n~v home cos[? ¢~,b~rwr LLgh[I,rg: \'Tdl e×~rwr ( ~cur¢.t0 I~h~mq be ofer~wu5 or con~Lcterect offensWe btt mit ne~hbors or others passl, tlCj btl9 Can l accom?h,sh mq needs and ~ the same tree, btt ~beldmg the I ht. r~rce, mml, ml,ze the obLru¢,veness of roll Jizjht. m¢ on the nabral envbronment.? "./t.c~v: Can locate mtl house so th~ have a great, yin',' wt,thout, e×ces¢,velq dam~mcj at,hers' vbs~s of the un~poded. n~bra[ kerram? Wbll peek holes m the ,/eg~wn From mq house .s, uffice? Could everdreens sof},en the qear- round tm?ac'b mq house on the n,~r, ural envtrmmenb? VVdl [md, md clearm¢ to onlq t.,h~ v/hich bs neces~arq help9 fnvbronmenLaJ: b the top of the mount.~m, hull or knol -_ msensd, we envbron- ment. aJhl and vtr:,uaJJt to ~ers? Wdl I t,nh¢~,t, the 'natural waterflow to the lands below? Wdll taus unneces~rt! Pro, tm Lo occur? Wdl I unne¢ essardq e~ose the house to the e×'t, remes of' weather, hot, or cold? Wtll the hou~ take adva'rtage of a .~:,uf~¥e¢, e×por~re wbth wt,nd ?ro'cect,~ from the nor~vest,? fhe Hour: Wdl the he~h[, roof' ?t,~hes. Color, anct e~terwr confJuct, wn mat, erbab blenct wtZh [he f, erram -_,urround- mq. ~e house sbte? Have J (or .mt! selected archl,~& or ~dder) dut. l, fuJJq repre~nted a keen senfJ, u,'d, Lt to the t,mpad, ~ ~e natural envuonmen[. ne~hbors, and mtled, u'e vt, mai fake a drwe and spot, check tpur choice of a .~b~ f'ro:'n Gr ancl near m all du'ect~wn~ tl¢.t v/dl be ~rnz, zed at, the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT E AGENDA TITLE: Impact Analysis of Proposed Mountain Overlay District Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Impact Analysis Report for Information Purposes STAFF CONTACT(S): Mary Joy Scala AGENDA DATE: Ma3' 19, 1998 INFORMATION: Yes ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has requested that all proposed County ordinances be evaluated for impacts to (1) housing costs: (2) County staffing needs; and (3) development review time. In addition, staff has evaluated other related costs and benefits. including reductions in time and'expense commitments. Many costs and benefits cannot easily be quantified. The proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD) would apply to approximately 84,000 acres, including 15,000 acres in the Shenandoah National Park. Excluding the Park, the proposed District includes approximately 15% of the total County acrea_~e. There are approximately 1900 parcels which would be affected by the proposed ordinance. AlmOst all are currently ~oned RTA. Rural Areas. The only designated mountains in the Development Areas are in Urban Area Neighborhood Six: Still'house Mountain, Lewis Mountain, Observatory Hill, Round Top and several other unnamed peaks in the Ragged Mountmns. Since 1991, between 9-17 dwellings per. year have been constructed on parcels totally or partly within the proposed Mountain Overlay District. This number is expected to continue and to escalate. The potential exists for many parcels and dwellings in the mountains, both on 21+ acre parcels and on development right lots. In a 1996 staff report, it was estimated that there is poptential for as many as 3,000 devlopment right lots and 1,300 parcels of 21 + acres within the Mountain Overlay District. Currently, dwellings may be constructed in the mountain areas provided building sites exist. Private driveways are not regulated on critical slopes. SUMMARY: The ordinance impacts on housing costs, staffing needs and review time will be slight to moderate: The ordinance will add moderately to the cost of a single family dwelling in.MOD areas. Less expensive, affordable housing should not be significantly impacted because it is unlikely that housing in this cost range would be built in mountainous areas. Staff time necessary for special use permit and subdivision reviews by Planning will increase based on the number of applications received. Stafftime will increase slightly for review of building permit applications and enforcement, primarily by Building and Zoning. Staffing needs will be impacted moderately for inspections in the MOD by Engineering, and staff time will be increased slightly for review m~d inspection of erosion and sedimentation plans (rather than agreements) in the MOD. Review times for building permits on parcels which have been approved under this ordinance will increase slightly. Review times will increase more significantly when a building permit ii applied for on a parcel which has not been subdivided under the current ordinance. In that case, a building site must be verified by an engineer or surveyor as meeting the ordinance. Also, Planning and Engineering must verify that the ordinance requirements are met, which additional steps could add to the length of time of approval. The ordinance should provide positive impacts in terms of public road maintenance costs, emergency services response times and costs, school busing times and other bus transportation issues, soil erosion and water quality impacts. - DISCUSSION: I. Housing Costs Impact on Single Family Dwelling: Additional costs which the proposed Moun. tain Overlay District would add to the cost cfa single family dwelling may include: (1) Additional grading or stabilization measures to meet the requirement of maximum 2:1 side slopes on a driveway' or building pad; (2) Additional grading or stabilization measures to meet the requirement of maximum 2:1 side slopes and 40 foot minim.urn turning radius on a private road; (3) The fee charged by a professional engineer or !_a_nd surveyor to show a building site location on either a fi~3a_l plat_ or bom3d_ary survey and written verification that the site complies with the ordinance; (4) The cost cfa special use permit applicatio~n ($990) ifa property owner chooses to apply for a special use permit for a small lot rather than use a 21 + acre parcel by right; (The Planning Commission recommended deletion of a special use pemit requirement for small lots.) (5) The cost to have an Erosion and Sedimentation Plan prepared if required rather than an agreement. Impact on Affordable Ho.using: Extra costs normally associated with buil.ding in a mountainous area would make it unlikely that affordabld housing would normally be built there. There is need for meaningful opportunity for affordable housing to be provided in the County-'. A "meaningful opportunity" may be best defined as close to schools, jobs, and public services, rather than in the most remote and difficult terrain of the Rural Area of the County. Mountain areas are not conducive to providing such conditions. Building a house on a mountain is generally more expensive than on flatter land due to'the length of the driveway required: the difficult3.' in locating a septic system on shallow soils; the additional grading and stabilization measures which may be needed: and the driveway maintenance which is an ongoing expense. H. Staffing Needs Additional staffing needs relate to: (1) Special use permit and subdivision applications (Planning); (The Planning Commission recommended deletion of a special use pemit requirement for small lots.) Attachment A is April 1, 1998 memo from Planning Chief, Ron Keeler, which notes additional stafftime will be necessary to review an unknown number of special use permks. He indicates that most mountain subdivisions would be administrative, and that additional time to explain the ordinance to the public would be needed, especially when the ordinance is first-adopted. The Planning Division currently has a full work load. However, the proposed Mountain Ordinance alone would not necessitate another staff position. (2) Administering building permits (Building and Zoning, Planning and Engineering); Attachment B is May 12, 1998 memo from the Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, which notes that the proposed ordinance will require an additional 30 hours of stafftime per year. Planning and Engineering would be assisting Building and Zoning in verifying that all ordinance requirements have been met prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff would note that, if a final plat is approved under the current ordinance, the process will be simplified. If a building permit is applied for oh an older, existing parcel, then the applicant will need to obtain verification from a surveyor or engineer that the proposed building site meets the ordinance. (3) Enforcement (Building and Zoning); Building and Zoning have not made estimates of staff time needed to pursue compliance in cases of violation. (4) Inspections ( Engineering); Engineering has noted the need for additional staff time.to inspect building footers to insure they are within the designated building site, and/or confirm that they are not within the Mountain Overlay District; to inspect private roads/driveways for compliance with 2:1 slopes and inspection of private roads for minimum 40 foot turning radius; and to inspect revetments/mitigation to permit slopes to be steeper than 2:1. and to insure proper completion of revetment/mitigation measures. - Engineering has also noted inspection/stafftime to address complaints and Violations of these items. (5) Erosion and Sedimentation Plan review and enforcement (Engineering). Attachment C is from the Cost Impact Analysis of the Water Ordinance. The Water Ordinance adopted in February. 1998. defines a "land disturbing activity" within the MOD as 2,500 square feet or more: outside the MOD it is defined a sl 0.000 square feet or more. Within the MhD, it is more likely that a soil erosion control plan will be required rather than an agreement. The additional 250 man-hours are based on review of 15 permits per year. The additional staff cost equals 250 (~ $20/hr or $5.000. The revenues are estimated at $1,950. III.- Review Time Subdivision and special use permit review time for projects in mountain areas would be in accordance'with existing schedules. Attachment B from Building and Zoning indicates an increase in review time of 1-4 weeks for a building pennit located within a MOD area, with the most time taken by a survey completion. This assumes that the customer is unfamiliar with the ordinance, and is-first informed of the need to verify a building site at the time the building permit is applied for. Plats which have been approved under this ordinance wiil already have the building site shown on the final plat, and will require less review time. The Building Official has noted that, including Planning in the permit review process to insure that mountain-related requirements are met, is a change in the process, with likely consequences related to turn-around time. Staffwould note that the ordinance is estimated to impact only approximately 15 building permits per year. Erosion and Sedimentation permits in a MOD area may necessitate review of a plan rather than an agreement, which approval may take several weeks. IV. Other Impacts Road-related Impacts Road maintenance expenses - public roads extended into mountain areas can be expected to carry higher maintenance costs than those in less hilly terrain. Homes in mountainous areas often require longer roads to reach the residences than those in non-mountainous area. Road maintenance expenses that are paid from public funds can include repairing road surfaces, installation of guardrails due to steep side slopes, snow and ice removal, clearing trash and brush, erosion control, mowing rights-of-way, maintaining road signs and related expenses. Even on existing mountain roads, increasing numbers of residences may require'increased maintenance needs, as well as demands for paving of gravel roads, requiring public funds. Public safety-related Impacts Emergency response times - houses within the mountain overlay district can be expected to require longer emergency response times than those outside of the mountains, due to longer roads, conditions of roads that are less conducive to rapid response, and other factors. In some cases, roads and'driveways may not be adequate to accommodate the passage of large emergency vehicles. Police response - probability of arrest for response-related incidents declines dramatically for every five minutes of police response time, becoming a small probability for response times of thirty minutes or more. Mountain development may have lengthy response times, particularly in comparison to developments in non-mountainous areas that are easier to access, Relatively more time can be presumed to be spent by county police to serve a call in the mountainous region than in the non- mountainous region. Fire response - average time to reach locations of fires in mountainous regions far exceeds that in non-mountainous regions. In addition, mountain fires, whether or not associated with structures, typically require obligation of personnel and equipment for longer periods of time than fires outside of mountainous terrain. Mountain fires are more likely to require commitment of specialized and expensive fire fighting equipment such as helicopters, particularly when mountain houses are potentially at risk. Mountain fires are also more likely to lead to evacuation of homes than fires in non-mountainous rural areas, with the additional commitment of county emergency services. _ Emergency medical response - time to respond to emergency medical calls is similarlv increased in mountain homes compared to rural, non-mountain homes, due to the increased road distance, conditions of roads'and relative isolation o£typical mountain home development. Besides the risk to public welfare and the greater time required of emergency personnel, increased demand may be placed on the county for provision of additional services or commitment of funds for road improvements to improve the level of service for mountain homes. School-related Impacts. Busing times - to the extent that homes and roads are kept out of the mountain overlay district, it is reasonable to assume thai bus routes will be shorter and time required to bus children to schools will be short'er. This time mar~in max; not be trivial (every five minutes of additional busing time means each child will be spehding the equivalent of four m~)re sch~)ot davs ayear just riding a bus). When some rural areas already experience bus rides of up to one hour to and from school, extended routes on new mountain roads - typically with more difficult travel conditions and longer road len~hs per house served - may add significantly to the duration of the ride or require new bus routes at additional expense to the county. Sch oi>l closings due to road conditions - mountain roads can experience winter conditions that are relatively more harsh than roads outside of the mountains. A significant increase in mountain roads could affect county school policv fo; closings, delaved openings and early dismissals due to adverse weather, as well as bus transportation issues. Due to the nature of mom~tain rofids. costs for road maintenance would be expected to be higher per mile than the average rural road. The impact of the mountain protection ordinance will likely be reduced demand for county and state public resources and a favorable fiscal impact compared to the option of continuing county development without the ordinance. Water-related Impacts Development in the mountains typically results in higher erosion and sedimentation rates than development outside of the mountains, all else being equal. Construction outside of the mountain overlay district can be reasonably expected to require less time of county inspectors than similar construction within the mountain district, due to reduced time travelin~ a~cess roads and more manageable conditions for dealing with erosion control. ~ Since mountain development, by the nature of the topography that must be traversed by roads and building sites, would generally exceed the 10,000-square-foot threshold for the erosion and sedimentation control requirements anyway, the few additional sites that would, cross the 2¢500- square-foot threshold but are less than 10,000-square-feet would resu It in a mtn or increase in county stafftime for review and inspection. Soil saved and kept out of the water supply reservoir due to the erosion control provisions, as well as the location of houses · outside of' the mountain regions would save county and city resources that would otherwise be devoted to water treatment. eventual replacement of water supply, or alternative water supply approaches. ATTACHMENT A To: WCILIMB (Wayne Cilimberg),David Benish. Mary Joy Scala From: Ron Keeler Subject: Re: Fwd: Mtn. Ord. Impact Analysis Date: 4/1/98 Time: 3:08PM Originated by: JKELSEY @ ACVA on 4/1/98 12:06PM Forwarded by: MSCALA @ ACVA on 4/1/98 I:02PM (CHANGED) Replied by: WCILIMB ~ ACVA on 4/I/98 l:26PM Replied by: RKEELER ~ ACVA on 4/1/98 3:08PM It is difficult tO analyze'the staffing needs for Planning. If the maps were complete, it may be pos. sible to provide a better 'guesstimate.' As written. the'ordinance would require staff time for spec'ial use permit review, subdivision revi eve, and issuance of individual building permits: 1. SUBDIVISION- Both John Shepherd and Mavnard Sipe have accrued comp.time in the Planner position; indicating the need for assistance. The MOD will increase that need as most mountain subdivisions would probably be administrative. It should be emphasized that considerable explanation time to the public is likely. 2. SPECIAL USE PERMITS- As to sPecial use permits, Presumably, these would be handled by Senior Planners or Chiefs. Volume of applications is unlmown but if mapping were complete, we could see how many properties would be involved. As you know~ it has been difficult to meet timelines for the Work Program largely d-ue to current development reviews. .3. BUILDING PERMITS- This Department is not currently involved in issuance of building permits for single family dwellings. I believe Amelia has beet] making effort to shorten turn-around time on building permits and bringing another department into that process should be discussed. It may be better to leave the determinationg required by 31.2.2 to Zoning and Engineering (Zoning currently makes determinations required by 4.2). It' this department is involved, it would need to be a staff memmber veho could provide such review in a very short time periodJ Mary Joy Scala From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ATTACHMENT B Amelia McCullev Tuesday, May I'~, 1998 4:47 PM Mary Joy Scala: David Benish Ben Blankinship; John Shepherd: John Grady; Jay Schtothauer; Bill.Mawyer Mt Protection Staffing We didn't concentrate on the cost to the applicant in terms, of providing the necessary submittal info. I Understand that others will check with a surveyor. We are presuming that inspections will be done by the Engineering Dept. l!ve estimated that it will take an additional 30 hours total of staff time for each year, to administer the ordinance. This does not include pursuing compliance in cases of violation. That time is difficult to project. 1. We worked with a determination of the number of building permits (single family and accessory buildings single family) and an assumption of about 5 minutes per permit to check for the MOD overlay. This amounts to about 8 hours of staff time. 2 There will be about a dozen cases or so in which property either lies within or very close to the MOD. It'can take about 1 hour to receive and review all the necessary info. This amounts to about 12 hours of staff time. 3. There is an estimated 10 hours of staff time involved in discussion and actions relating to explanation and enforcement of the MOD. Any given case of violation would easily take 15 hours. In terms of the impact on the process time for the applicant within or r~ear the MOD,.the increase is a factor of: time delay in needing to be informed of all necessary info req'd for submittal time delay in waiting for surveyor to complete plan time involved in field inspection by Engineering Dept. This could add 1-4 Weeks 'to a permit, with the most time taken by the survey completion. Let me know if you have questions. ATTACHMENT C PAGE 1 Stormwater BMPs Can Increase Property Values; A final point about the cost impacts of providing water quality treatment through BMPs is that the Iiteramre makes note of the fact that certain BMPs can provide economic benefits. A recent EPA report claims that: Even though urban runoff nvanagement costs mon©,, properly designed runoff systems can provide economic benefits that counterbalance or even outweigh those costs... When designed and sited correctly, artificial lakes or ~vetIands can help developers reduce negative environmental impacts caused by the development process and increase the value of the property.2 While not all BMPs will be capable of providing these types of benefits, the opportunity does exist in some cases to offset increased design and construction costs. SUMMARY OF COUNTY STAFFING & REVENUE EFFECTS The potential impact of the proposed ordinance on Engineering Department staffing and additional revenues from user fees have been evaluated based on collected data and expectations of future demands. The critical components considered in the evaluation were plan review, administration, and inspection. The results are summarized below and are presented in terms of additional manhours and additional revenue generated by user fees. The support documentation for these figures is available upon request. ~;ummar_v of Additional Manhours Mountain Overlay District Provisions E&S Plan Review & Administration: 120 Inspections (construction & complaint based): 130 Total For Mountain Overlay Provisions 250 (additional manhours) Stormwater BMPfMitigation Plan Provisions Plan Review & Administration: 300 Construction Inspection (new facilities) 250 Semi-annual Maintenance Inspections (new facilities) 480 Total For Stormwater/BMP Provisions 1030 (additional ma nhours) 250+ 1030 manhours = 1280 manhours @ $20/hour (avg) = $25600 Additional Staff Cost To Implement New Ordinance. 12 ATTACHMENT C This cost does not haclude inspections for existing stormwater facilities constructed in accordance with the current ordinances. To conduct semi-annual inspections of existing stormwater facilities would require an additional 800 manhours, or $16000. Adding this service brings the total staff cost to $41600. PAGE 2 Summary of Additional Revenue From User Fees Mountain Overlay District Provisions E&S Plan Submittals,. 15 plans @ $40 E&S Inspections in Mountain District, 30 @ $45 Total For Mountain Overlay Provisions $ 600 $1350 $1950 Stormwater BMP~litigation Plan Provisions E&S Plan Submittals, 90 plans @ $50/plan additional E&S Inspections, 80 @ $15/inspection additional Stormwater/BMP Plan Submittals, 80 plans @ $100 Requests for Exceptions, 5 @ $190 Mitigation Plans, 25 @ $50 SWM Facility Construction Inspections. 60 @ $45 SWM Facility Maintenance Inspections, 120 @ $45 $ 4500 $1200 $ 8000 $ 950 $1250 $ 2700 $ 5400 Total For Stormwater/BMP Provisions $24000 Program Total Additional Revenues $25950 Net Cost Impact (Difference Between Additional Staff Cost & Program Revenues) = +$350 If Inspections of Existing Storm~'ater Facilitms is Added: Net Cost Impact = - $15650 1. Brown, Whitney and Thomas Schueter, The Economics of Stormwater BMPs in the Mid- Allillllig_lPxtgJf~, Center for Watershed Protection, prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., August, 1997. 2. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Benefits of Runoff (79ntr01s, EPA-841 -S-95- 002, Office of Wetlands. Oceans. and Watersheds, September, 1995. June 3, 199B (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 000311 the Board is no~ precluded from making an additional legislative request later in the Summer. ~ir. Bowerman suggested that the whole issue of TDRs, PDRs, growth management, etc., needs to be reexamined comprehensively. He said the ability of the current legislation to deal with the issues the Counuy is facing has been ou5 paced. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:35 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowe~-man, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into executive'session pursuant to section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters concerning th~ s~atus and/or assignment of two specific employees; under subsection (1) to interview and discuss appointments To boards and commissions; under subsection (1) to discuss an administrative ~valuation; under subsection (7) ~o consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating ~o a service agreement; under subsection (7) To consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific l~gal matters relating to a cooperative agreement; and, under subsection (7) To consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to the transition of Charlottesville to town status. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman~, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr..Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session. At 1:41 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. ~otion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of 'each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Preedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the execuZive session. Roll was called and the mo~ion ~arriedby the following recorded AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas~ Mr. BQwerman, MS. HumPhris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. ~one. Agenda Item No. 13. Appointmfints. There were no appointments ~o be made today Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: Mountain Protection Ordinance. ~r. Tucker said Mr. David Tics would make a slide presentation, followed by Ms. Mary Joy Scala ma. king a presentation re~arding the ordinances, Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Planning Commission's recommendations~ Three other presentations will follow, one regarding EMS, one regarding forestry issues and one regarding land values. Mr. Tice said it was about one and one-half years ago that the Board first heard recommendations from the Mountain Protection Committee so he would take a few minutes to review the history of the issue. Efforts To preserve mountain resources go back to the 1971 Comprehensive Plan ~hich identified the mountains aa conservation areas. /ks the County has worked through Plan revisions, the mountains have continued ~o play an important part mn conservation. In 1989~ the Comprehensive Plan recommended development of an Open Space Plan, which the Board held hearings on and adopted in 1992. The Open Space Plan recommended that the County develop m Mountain Protection Ordinance.. One reason was that es designated growth areas began to fill ou~, it wes assumed there would be building activity in the mountains. 3kshcroft is an example off a well-planned developmen~ in the mountains. In the last few years, many individual homes-have been built in the mountains, as well. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) In 1995, the Board appointed the Mountain Protection Committee made up of 12 members, including moun=ain landowners, Realto=s, foresters and Chamber of Commerce members. They were to look at the ~ssue of what the build out of the County means and what the iraplications would be on the mountains. At the time the committee met, they did not have the benefit of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's analysis, which maps he then showed to the Board as a slide presentation. The map on the left shows a schematic map of the current density of the Planning District, with colors ranging from dark green with no houses to red being dense housing. The map on the right'is'a map of what would develop with curren~ zoning, re~ulations and environmental restraints. The short of it is that if you superimpo~ the areas of mountains, with the current zoning in place, most of The mountain areas can be developed at a density comparable to Barracks Road ou= toward Foxfields or the area within Glenmore or around Earlysvilte. Most of the mountain overlay area consists of critical slopes, slopes that are too steep to build on. So, if you take the same density as suggested by the maps on the right and reduce it to those areas on the mountain overlay district that can actually be built on. you are looking au a much higher density within those areas. There is no good answer as to how many development rights there are. On a strictly theoretical level, the best estimate is approximately 7000 potential development rights within the moun=ain overlay district. From a practical standpoint, many of those would probably never be used because of the constraints of property lines and critical slopes. The number, however, is not important, but the impacts are. There are a number-of concerns associated with housing development in the mountains. The point about development rights is that, no matter the number, if you have a concentration of them in one area, there are questions of the impacts both from an environmental and economic standpoint. Mr. Tice said the Committee developed a Mountain Protection Plan with three basic parts: (1) the proposed Mountain Overlay District, (2) the lighting ordinance, and, (3) areas suggeste~ for further study by the County, such as PDRs.. There were several recommendations from the committee for the Mountain Overlay Districts, ohe was'that, because of the unique nature of the steep slopes, the County should establish a higher level of scrutiny for erosion and sedimentation control within those areas. Secondly, it recommended =hat houses be allowed on ridges only if those are the only building ~ites on that parcel. It also recommended further restrictions on building sites and parcel developments and.that the final plats show the building sites so that the County's zoning and buildin~inspectors know where the building sites are. The committee also recommended driveway standards because of concern about erosion and sedimentation and also for emergency vehicle access. That.part of the committee's recommendation, based on advice from the County Attorney's office, was not part of the Ordinance. Water quality and soil erosion are the most important reasons for looking at mountain protection. Mountains are inherently unstable., as illustrated bY large debris flows. More often, this is seen in minor erosion and soil stability problems that cumulatively can affect water quality. The watersheds depend on the quality of the water that comes out of the mountains. The driveway standards were brought up because the committee was concerned about the ability to maintain stable side slopes on private roads, which is why the Ordinance has a requirement that side slopes ~e no steeper than 2:1. The committee was concerned about tight curves and the grade of roads within the districts and the implications for access of emergency vehicles. Mountains tend to be fire-prone, and fire in mountains behaves differently than fires in level areas and access can become a problem. The mountain areas are some of the last undisturbed blocks of land in the County and for that reason, tend to be important for u number of species, such as the black bear. Of very high importance is the recognition that mountains are important for the economic vitality of the region, both for the direct benefitof forest products, agriculture, orchards and vineyards, and also the indirect benefits on tourism. Of great importance to continued growth is Ehe attractiveness Of the region. The local economic impor=ance of A~bemarle's mountains is as raw materials, indirect economic benefi'ts and non-commercial, non-recreational benefits. Mountains are key to the region's socio-economic and environmental viability. The Committee recommended the Plan two years ago. The Board sent ~he Plan back to the Planning Commission and asked them to begin developing a proposed Mountain Ordinance. The Planning Commission held three work sessions June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) 0003~8 in the fall of 1996 and then directed staff to begin preparing an ordinance. Over the next year, staff, in conjunction with members of the Committee, Commission and local groups, looked over a wide range of alternatives. It is probably safe to say that all possibilities have already been considered. The Ordinance then came before the Commission. In response to an enormous outpouring of concern from the public, the Commission made some major changes. If what came from the Committee was compared with what came from the Commission, the ~wo ordinances are very similar. Ms. Scala began by talking about the three proposals before the Board. She said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 1998, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of CPA-98-01, Mountains, and ZMA-98-10, Mountain Overlay District, bot~ as. proposed. They also recommended approval of ZTA-' 98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions, with some changes (see staff report for list of changes). She said the first Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. CPA-98-01. Mountains is an amendmenn to Chapter. Two of the Comprehensive Plan, ~The Natural Environment,. to include a section on "Mountains," including a list of mountains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map description of mountains by contour elevation. This is important because if the Board adopts any provision that requires a special use permit, that language in the Plan would be looked at for guidance. The second is an Amendment to the Zoninc Ordinance Text, ZTA-98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions. An amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Albemarle to add Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour elevations in mountain districts, including a requirement to obtain a special use permit to subdivide lots under 21 acres, and restrictions such as allowing no building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, amendments to Chapter 20 would apply County-wide: An amendment to add Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are al~o proposed to related Code provisions, including Section 3.0~ Definitions, Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, and, Section 31.2.2, Building Permits. · The third is an Amendment to the Zonin~ MaD, ZMA-98-10, Mountain Overlay District. This is an amendment to the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation ~o certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations and described as Mountains in proposed Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. Ms. Scala then spoke about District Boundaries. She said a Mouhtain Overlay District {MOD) boundary for each mountain has been identified by a specific contour line elevation located in the area wherethe critical slopes begin on a particular mountain. (For example: The MOD boundary for Fox Mountain begins au the 1200 foot contour elevation.) ~The intent is to the mountain resources above this elevation, where the mountain becomes visually prominent, and where development is more difficult due ~o concentrations of critical slopes." Within the MOD boundaries, Ridge Areas have been delineated (In no case does a Ridge Area extend outside a MOD boundary). The Ridge Area is the highest and most prominent part of a mountain, defined as land within 100 vertic~! feet o.f the mountain ridgeline and peaks. The intent of the ordinance is to keep development off the Ridge Area as much as possible. The proposed MOD boundaries and Ridge Areas have bean shown on nopographic maps and on tax maps, which will become the official Mountain Overlay District zoning maps when adopted. As far as what the Ordinance specifically does, the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) overlays the original zoning district. In almost every case, this is a Rural Areas (RA) zoning district, wi=h few exceptions. The propose~ MOD overlays the RA district and currently that means the owner has to already have development rights for small lots or do minimum 2t-acre parcels. Also, he canno~ build unless there is a building site defined as 30,000 square feet with a mini~m-25 percent ~lope, and the property must meet subdivision ordinance requirements. Many mountain properties are already limited by development rights, building sites or access. These requirements of the MOD will be in addition to the requirements in the underlyin~ zoning district. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 0003~4 (Page 40) Ms. Scala said the Rural Area requirements and the critical slope requirements were put into effect in 1980. The critical slope requirements require a building site, while the house, septic fields and the driveways are not regulated. The Committee's version of the ordinance required a special use permit for the small development right lots. Under the Planning Commission's version, they have done away with that requirement, so the 2!-acre parcels and small development right lots would be allowed by right in the MOD, but not on the ridge area. The original ordinance and.the Planning Commission's version both kept the requirement that building could not occur on the ridge area. There Ks one exception, and that is that if there is no Other place to build on the parcel, the owner is allowed to build one house. When the Planning commission made its recommendation, they said the Board may want to leek into allo~ing a limited amoun~ of building in the ridge area, perhaps by special use permit. There are listed exceptions in ~he ordinance for the ridge/no-build area, one be.iht production/agricultural, so a barn couldbe built; another is an accessory structure of less than 500 feet a hunting cabin could be built, but no5 a dwelling. Another is a structure, but no~ a building, of less than 20 feet in height, like a gazebo. Towers are also exempted. The Committee said it did not want to see towers in this area, but there may be existing ~owers. The Ordinance exempts towers, but they still require approval by a special use permit, in order to get a building permit in the mountain area, the owner has to show where the building will be on the building site. They can do this by either submitting the final plat showing the building site or by showing the building sitecn a boundary survey. Water ordinance provisions define the disturbed area within the MOD as 2500 square feet, but they are described in other areas as 10,000 square feet so that would be one impact of this ordinance. If 2500 square feet were disturbed within the MOD, an erosion control permit is required. Most people building a single-family home get an agreemen~ in lieu of a plan for an erosion control permit. Under the MOD, the Water Ordinance says special consideration should be Given ~o properties in the MOD; probably, a plan would be required more often than an a~reement because there may be concern about erosion. As ~o Constructed Embankments, the Ordinance specifies that there shall be a maximum 2:1 slope to all driveways and building pads throughout the County. Private roads are currently restricted to 16 percent ~Tade by the existing subdivision Ordinance. Private road in the MOD, which would be. for ~hree or more lots, are required to have a 2:! side slope-and a minimum 40-foot turnlnG radius for horizontal curvature 'in ord~ to all6w emergenc~ vehicles to get to dwellings. The Committee's ordinance did not talk about existing residences. The Planning Commission, in their, other major change co the Ordinance, recommended that a ~randfathering clause be added so additions could be put on existing residences, and if they were destroyed by fire they would not become non-conforming, and could be replaced. Ms. Scala said the two major changes made by the Planning Commission ~o the original proposal were: (1) they deleted the requiremen~ for a special use permit for small lots and made it all a use by right, 'except on the ridge area, and (2) they added the grandfathering clause for existing residences and then said ~hat the Board should consider some mechanism, such as the special use permit, to allow some building on ridge areas when it ca~ be shown that building on the ridge would be. less damaging environmentally then building below the ridge area. Deletin~ the requirement for a special use permit for small lots goes back to the Committee's original recommendation. The Planning Commission provided wordin~ for the Board if it wants to allow some development on the ridge area by special use permit. They only considered allowing single-family dwellings on the ridge area by special use permit; the Board may want to discuss other uses on the ridge, either by right orby special use permit. Ms. Scala said she had a list of approximately nine subdivisions which are currently in th~ approval process in the MOD. A question often asked is about rural preservation developments (RPDs) 0 which would be allowed as they are now, except in the ridge area. If the Board approves the ordinance recommended by the Committee, the only way the clustered RPDs. would be allowed is through a special use permit. Ms. Scala said there is an impact analysis which evaluaues housing costs, staffing needs and developmen~ review time. Other related costs and benefits', were also evaluated including reductions in time and expense commitments. The proposed MOD would apply to approximately 84,000 acres. 0003~5 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 41) including 15,000 acres !n the Shenandoah National Park. Since 1991, there have been between nine and !7 dwellings per year constructed on parcels totally or partially within the MOD. This number is expected to continue to escalate. In summary, the housing costs, staffing needs and review time will be slight to moderate; the Ordinance will add moderately to the cost of a single-family dwelling in the MOD areas Ir was the Commission's opinion that less expensive affordable housing should no~ be significantly impacted because it is unlikely that housinG in this cost range would be built in the MOD. As to staffing time, the main impact will be a moderate increase in inspections in the MOD, particularly by engineering department staff. Review times for building permits would increase significantly only when the parcel has not been subdivided, and hence, they do nor have a plat in hand. The Ordinance should provide positive impacts in terms of public road maintenance, emergency services response time, school busing times, soil erosion and water quality impacts. Ms. Scala said there were many guest speakers present today. She then introduced Ms. Kurt Ellison, the emergency and medical services person out of Culpeper, Mr. Joseph Samuels, an appraiser, and Ms. Cindy Frenzell, Department of Forestry. She said each made important additions to the staff report. She then offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas noted that on Page 2 of the staff's report it is noted that the Engineering Department staff would have to inspect driveways, but there is no regulation in the ordinance for driveways. Ms. Scala replied that they would have to inspect the side slopes, but not the grade of the driveway; all Dther private driveway requirements were taken out. It is expected that they would do this at the same time as they looked at the building pad to make sure building is occurring on the approved building site. Mr. Marshall questioned a statement made by Mr. Tice that the primary reason people are attracted to Albemarle is due to the beauty of the mountains. Mr. Tice said that statement was actually made by the director of the Thomas Jefferson Economic Partnership at a recent meeting. Mr. Marshall said he disagrees, and thinks the primary reason is the University of Virginia, second, the County's schoolsf and third,, aesthetics. He-feels the main season people move to Charlottesville and Albemarle is its people. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Samuels to explain how.he goes about appraising land values. Mr. Samuels said his specialt~ is the appraisal of rural lands, particularly with partial-interests. A fee simple value is a bundle of rights. His specialty is the value of land if you remove one or mDre of those rights, by comparing it with other similar properties. Mr. Samuels said he reviewed the documents related to the proposed Ordinance. The implications of the Ordinance, particularly as it applies to land value, cannot be considered in a vacuum. The intent of the Ordinance was to steer new construction away from the ridge~ops. Existing lots in the MOD may be used; existing houses !n the MOD can be used, expanded or replaced, and the ridgetop can be used when no other house site exists. Relative to application, the proposed ordinance is inclusive of all properties with certain mountain characteristics and individuals are not isolated in the implications of the ordinance. He said even distribution is important in the consideration of value implications. Mr. Samuels said an arqument might be made that owners of mountain land are being singled out and it is important to recognzze that mountain properties have always been a separate market segment within the RA district, just as all river or forest properties, and they are segregated for various characteristics. The ordinance, therefore,'does not create a new separation of these properties. Relative ~o scope, the ordinance applies uo all mountain areas in the County with elevation adjustments. There is no favorable treatment of some areas of the County over another. Albemarle's unique position in the Central VirGinia area ensures that the market for these properties will not radically alter with the passage of the ordinance. · Mr. Samuels said he gathered Albemarle County sales to guide him in finding out how the current market percezves these properties. He used the local MLS System and his own records. He collected data only from January 1, !995, when the Mountain Protection Committee was formed, simply to reduce the amount of material to go through, and it was likely that anyone looking at mountain property since that time had an idea that something was happeninu. Because the ordinance addresses new lots and new construction, he limited his (Page 42) search to unimproved land and to improved land where a sizeable portion of the land was in the MOD. Be did not research sales in Ashcroft and Rosemont. Mr. Samuels said he gathered sales data to determine if there would be any implication on the value of land from passage of the ordinance. He found 30 sales totaling 8000 acres where most of the land was in the MOD. The distribution was fairly geographically even. 0nly six sales were of less than 21 acres, and all of these were unimproved lands. Two hundred and fifty-eight acres were purchased where some house sites are now being marked as above the MOD elevation lines. Alternatively, there were 997 acres in three tracts, purchased subjec~ to conservation easements,'with an average density of acres. Of the remaining sales, brokers and/or owners confirm that the sale was not motivated by %nticipati0n of utilizing the area for anything excep~ foresting or recreation. The importance that might be gleaned from this information in that there is a market for properties with restrictions on development, and passage of the ordinance as proposed cannot automatically be considered a detriment uo land values. Mr. Samuels said value is enhanced by utilizing land at its highest and best use. In this case, it might be argued that value is enhanced when the consistent highest best use is applied. These sales suggest the broader market assigns a highest best use and value to the mountain land for the scenic or recreational amenities it offers. Building sites on ridgetops are not a critical component to the overwhelming majority of invesuors in mountain lands. A minority use inconsistent with the best use has the potenuial to erode value uo the remainder because of ~he inherent high profile. Lastly, and perhaps least important, the data suggesus that purchasers seek mountain land in quantities to compensate them in privacy for the loss of convenience. Value is not an absolute, it is relative in measure against others of its kind. Mr. Samuels said a careful reading of the proposed ordinance and the proposed revisions shows a fairly flexible documenu. There does not appear to be a single rigid element of the ordinance that absolutely eliminates a properuy from residential use. In one of the documents circulated recently, landowners said they will have a 50 percent loss of value from the ordinance. From his experience, a value loss of that magnitude is encountered only when the highest and best use of the land is for development and you cannot build a Single house on the property and equally important, the neighbors are not similarly restricted. To argue a loss of proper~y value by virtue of the ordinance assumes the property cannot be built upon at all or that denial of the ridgetops as building sites will irrevocably alter the market. In his opinion, neither is true. The old adage, "Location, location, location" seems appropriate. There is no alternative uo Albemarle County mountains with respect to convenience to the lather work centers or the University of Virginia and the other amenities offered inside the County. Mr. Samuels said that in the foreseeable future, he does not envision buyers driving to other counties away from the cenuralized amenities in order to build on a mountaintop. This is especially true when you consider tha.t the ordinance leaves a ceruain flexibility to find elevated settings that cannot be found outside the County and circumstances where eveh a mountaintop can be found with the right combination of elements. He appreciates that there are those for whom the proposed ordinance appears, in the abstract, as a loss of property rights. A closer examination reveals a fairly flexible document tha~ will support the broader higher and best use as defined by the market in e consistent manner sustaining value for all as a consequence. There is no scientific or empirical evidence to suggest that there is a loss of property values to those affected by the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Samuels brought any biases or prejudices to his analysis. Mr. Samuels said he took on the role that the Board was his client and that he wanted to be as objective as possible. There was no intent to show bias. Mr. Marshall asked whether this ordinance would constitute a taking of anyone's'land, and if so, is the County prepared to compensate. Mr. Davis replied that legally, there would not be any taking of the property, since all property still has a reasonable use as residential use or other uses that are not affected. A taking of property has been defined by the courts of Virginia as leaving no reasonable use of the properuy after a regulatory process has taken away soma rights. That ia not the case with this ordinance. (Page 43) Mr. Marshall asked about an individual who purchased property and wanted to build a home for retirement purposes on a mountaintop; would the County not be taking away that person's right ~o build a home. Mr. Davis said there is a distinction between someone being able zo maximize the value of their property and having a reasonable use of the proper~y. Courts have not viewed regula- tory efforts of government to be a taking unless you have so restricted the use that there is no reasonable use left for the property. Simply taking away the maximization of use of the property is not a taking. From a strictly legal viewpoint, this has never been a taking of proper~y, and is not something a government has been required to compensate someone for. From a philosophical viewpoint, you could view this as taking away some rights, but it is not s property ~ight taking that would require compensation. Mr. Marshall said he was referring to a case in South Carolina where an individual who had oceanfront property who wanted to develop it, took it to the Supreme Court, and he won the case. Mr. Davis said in that case, the court found that there was no reasonabie use of that property allowed after the government imposed the regulations because they basically said ~you cannot use this property for anything' and that is no~ what this ordinance proposes. Mr. Marshall said the county would be taking away a right from an individual. If an individual buys property ~o build on, and then at this point cannot build because of this ordinance, the County may have no legal right to compensate this individual, but does it have a moral obligation to compensate the individual. Mr. Davis replied the Court decisions do no~ deal with moral rights; as a legal basis, that is not a taking of the property, and is not anything any court would make the County compensate the landowner for. Mr. Samuels ~oted that there is an even distribution of the implications of the ordinance. Landowners are not isolated; their neighbors are treated equally. There is no loss in value to the property, and to the money invested in the proper~y by virtue of the ordinance. If the only building site is on the ridge, he can build on it. He said the broader market recognizes the lower e~evations as being equally important. It is a minority pare of the market which looks at the ridge top as the best place to build. It is that minority profile which creates an inconsistency in the highest ~nd best use. The ordinance has the potential to solidify that. Mr. Martin asked whether Mr. Samuels was saying that the property had not necessarily lost value, just changed use. Mr. Samuels said ~yes." Ms. Thomas asked whether family subdivisions were still allowed in this ordinance. Ms. Scala said that ~yes," they were still allowed, but they would have to conform to the requirements of not building on the ridge, etc. If they have development rights, building sites, and can meet ~hose requirements, they are ssill allowed. Mr. Martin said most mountaintop property is in the Rural Areas, ~xcept for exceptions, such as Lewis Mountain. Any subdivisions would have to be based on current Subdivision Ordinance regulations. So, if someone owned 5O acres, under the current ordinanc~, they would have 5hree division rights. Ms. Scala said that with 50 acres, two, 21-acre parcels could be divided, and that would leave eight acres, so there could possibly be four division rights, and two large parcels under a maximum division. Mr. Martin asked if this new ordinance is adopted, what has changed? Ms. Scala said it would depend entirely on where that ridge area falls on that parcel. Mr. Martin'said to assume that of 52 acres, 48 of those acres are in MOD and the ridge area. Ms. Scala said on a parcel that straddles the ridge area, the MOD and is partly outside of the MOD, they can do anything that is normally allowed outside of the MOD. Within the MOD, they can do their 21-acre parcels and, if it is done as the Commission recommended, the small five, ~wo-acre lots. The caveat is ~hat there would still have to be a building site. If they do not have enough'buildihg sites outside of the MOD and inside of the MOD to use all of their development rights, they would lose ~hose development rights. The only way they could build on the ridge would be if. the entire parcel were on the ridge or if it straddles the MOD and the ridge, and everything outside of the ridge is steep slopes, so the only building site is on the ridge. That is an extreme case where one house would be allowed, if there were no where else to build. Mr. Martin noted that ~he Commission recommended the Board allow special use permits that would allow some flexibility even in those kind of situations. Ms. Scala agreed and noted that the Committee discussed that in their initial recommendations. They thought it would be good to have flexibility on the ridge. The Committee was ~u.e ~, l~ (Regular Day Meeting) 000,31S (Pa~e 44) concerned about what might be allowed. The Commission suggested the Board look at some mechanism such as a special use permit. Mr. Marshall said what he has been hearing from people is the objection that someone builds a white houses on a bare spot on top of a mountain, making it visible for miles. He. thinks they should be required to build using earth tones, and screen it with as many trees as possible. He asked if the Board could regulate that practice. Ms. Scala said she did no5 Think that a person could be made to paint their home a particular color, but under the special use permit process, such things could be addressed, based on what is listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, a site plan cannot be required for a single-family home; the only requirement is that they build on a building site, the driveway ~a~ be any steepness. This ordinance does allow the Board to look ak development on the mountain much more critically. Mr. Perkins asked whether anyone had tried to calculate what this ordinance will cosg the average person who wants To build a home, for permits and extra construction. Ms. Scala said there are four main changes. They might have to make the driveway wider. They need a soil erosion plan instead of an agreement, which could cost up to $1000. The benefit of having the plan is that it will control soil erosion much better in steeper areas. The written agreement that mos5 homes have now Just says that they agree not ~o cause soil erosion. They would have to show that they have a building site, either through the normal subdivision process where they'd show it on ~he final plat, or by a boundary survey to show that they meet the ordinance; a survey which might add $400 to $2500 To the costs. Also, the final driveway and building site would need 5o be verified before construction begins. The cosc would be variable, depending on the fieldwork involved; the estimated cosz range is $300 ~o $1000. Ms. Thomas asked if it would be a fair summary of Mr. Samuels' report to say that since rural land and mountain land have a particular niche in the market, it will retain its niche and value for rural residential land because it is a limited commodity and it has its values because it is close to Charlottesville. Mr. Samuels said that statement was essentially coz-rect, but his analysis was based on how the market perceives the land and if the market saw the land as useful for developmen~ purposes, That is how he would have reported it. For the vast majority of the land he looked at, people are using the land as a recreational or scenic amenity. There is a high minority profile that looks at it as building sites, but by and large, ~he market does no~ perceive it as such. So, for the reasons Ms. Thomas listed, he does not believe The value would decline because of passage of the ordinance. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Samuels saw any increase in people from outside the area coming in and wanting to build on prominent ridge tops. Mr. Samuels said that a minority have ~aken that opportunity, but it is very much a minority use, but by the very nature of the property, it is high'profile. Mr. Martin said his concern was more with the person who owns the proper~y in terms of division rights and re'tention of value. Mr. Bowerman asked if, since Mr. Samuels had referred to the Board as his client, had they paid him, co which Mr. Samuels replied*~no.'' Mr. Bowerman said he found the presentation very persuasive, refuting the main argument against the ordinance, which is a decrease in land value. Because this is the main issue, Mr. Samuel's credibility ~s very important. If, of the 85,000 acres, only 6000 of the 7000 division rights could be used, is it the argument that all 6000+ would be higher after adoption of th~ ordinance. Mr. Samuels replied that he did not Think a lot will move significantly in the present market. Evidence suggests that people do not view the mountaintops as viable or important building sites. In ~he broader market, there is a high profile minority that desire these sites. In the nine subdivisions that MS. Scala mentioned briefly, he suggests that this might be changed. _Mr. Bowerman asked if the value of a lot would be the same. Mr. Samuels said he did not anticipate a significant change, but it depends on the numbers g~ven. Mr. Kurt Ellis6n, re~ionat coordinator with the Virginia Department ~f Emergency Services and nationally certified emergency manager, said he deals with emergency managemenz in highly urban areas to highly rural and has 25 years experience in emergency management. Just recently, Roanoke Valley was announced as a candidate for the newly-formed Project Impact, a highly publicized mitigation program. The push is mitigation and when you have structures that are located up in mountainous areas, it makes sense that it is difficult uo get services to them. It used ~o be that there were no problems (Page 45) with people near rivers, oceans or mountains. People jus~ did not live there because they saw rivers rise or hurricanes hit beaches. The number one killer in Virginia is flooding. More people died in ~elson County from a hurricane than have ever died on the oceanfront, and it was as a resul~ of flooding. He was intimately associated with the Madison operation during the flood some years ago and the number one problem was access. It is still~ and always will be, a major problem in flooding, debris flows, fires and snowstorms. Driveways and access roads wash out during storms and people are stuck in their homes. There are nc statistics on how many people have died because of lack of access, but it has caused major hardship in areas. People who live in mountainous areas tend to be self-reliant, knowing that such problems happen, but when they need help, they ask for help and people cannot get to them. Mr. Etlison said he is concerned about driveways and access roads; fire trucks and ambulances are usually quite high, in addition to width and drainage, these vehicles are quite heavy and the roads often cannot bear their weight. Today's reNulations do not pay for any repairs to driveways, so if a person's private driveway washes ou~ during a flooding event., there are no dollars ~o help repair it. The other issue is whether rescue personnel should be repairing these driveways. Some feel that those who put themselves in such situations should not be eligible for PEMA assistance. The focus these days is on mitigation; spend a dollar today to save ten dollars down the road. The Department of Emergency Services is interested in, not necessarily restricting, but controlling the kind of development so that when they do call for service, service can get there. Ms. Thomas asked for a definition of miti'gation. Mr. Ellison said it is like fire prevention; doing something that prevents the'impact of a future disaster. For instance, for someone who lives next to a river that constantly floods, moving the people away and not lettin9 anyone build there would be mitigation, He noted that there were currently such projects going on in Madison County, purchasing land and relocating the residents, then dedicating the land to the County with the provision that nothing ever be built there. Ms. Thomas asked whether he was also suggestin~ that there should be* les~ disaster relief for people who knowingly.put themselves in harm's way. Mr. Ellison aNreed, saying that FEMA does not look favorably on applicants who place themselves where they know that disaster could strike. Mr. Marshall noted that access is not always the problem. His tenant house that is only 100 yards from the highway, burnt to the ~round with fire trucks sitting all around it. Mr. Ellison said that fire service configuration: location, equipment and such, are also important issues. Ms. Thomas asked about the turning radius mentioned inthe ordinance. Mr. Ellison said it was added uo make sure the large vehicles, such as the fire trucks, could make the curves. Mr. Perkins said this also brought up the question of whether it was .the County's responsibility to protect everyone from everything. Mr. Marshall said he did* nou think you could, thau he chose to live on a mountaintop and that it was his own responsibility. Mr. Ellison said the common.opinion was that it was the government's job to fix everything after an emergency and that they were trying to change that attitude and make people aware of what they can do Eo lessen the impact of the nexu disaster if ~hey choose to live mn such areas. Ms. Cindy Frenzel, from the Virginia Department of Forestry and working for the Forest Protection Team, said her job was to protect forests from fo=est fires as well as homes in the urban/rural interface, built near or in foresus. She specializes in fire prevention programs and activities for woodland homes. Tkey have been counting the number of homes and doing various projecus to 9eu an idea of what kind of risk is involved. The number of homes across the state has increased seven- to ten-fold since 1979. The Department of Forestry fights fires; they are the quick initial response to forest fires. During the fire season from March through May, they have helicopters on standby just to be able to save these woodland homes quickly. It does not just happen. ~omes do not just survive by luck. The main issue is access and she fully supports everything that has already been said about access. If Zhe truck cannot get up the driveway, that is where the protection stops. Ms. Frenzel said that in Afton, there was one home that survived the force of the forest fire partly because the house was made of virtually June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) 0003~0 fireproof materials. Key issues are access, driveways, bridges, water for firefighters~ building materials and landscaping around the home. People enjoy living in the woods, surrounding your home with trees, but she recommends that there be at least 30 feet of clearance between the.landscaping and the home to keep the house from catching on fire from a forest fire. In Shenandoah, where she lives, an one point if lots were larger than three acres, they were exemp~ from road specifications, so they have three large subdivisions with grossly inadequate roads. If people wan5 to build woodland homes, there needs to be access. Ms. Thomas said people have suggested that roads built for logging uses be used for residential development. She asked if logging routes were adequate for access fdr fire trucks. Mr. Samuels said one problem was that flat roads without any drainage wash out quickly. It is not so much the turning radius as no drainage ditches or maintenance. Mr. Perkins said it is not the initial road that is the problem. The road is adequate when the cemeht truck comes up to pour the foundation. The problem is that the road deteriorates and is not maintained. It depends on what happened to the logging roads after the logging was over. If you put ditches in, you need to have pipes and if the pipes stop up, you are better off hOC having any pipes. The road would be more stable with broad-based dips than one with stopped-up pipes. Mr. Perkins then handed out a drawing showing what happens with a 2:1 slope as compared 5o a 1.5:1 slope. Mr. Mawyer said a 2:1 side slope requirement takes more width. If your objective is to minimize the disturbed area, you are better off having $ueeper slopes That will, howsver, put you in an erosion control loop, since you have less disturbed area, but a steeper slope is more prone to erosion. The erosidn problem has not been helped. The ordinance does allow more flexibility for the engineer's office to allow steeper slopes in cases where it is warranted. The engineer's department has been working with planning to allow steeper slopes, even up to 1:1, and would wan= the language in. the ordinance dealing with private roads and constructed embankments revised uo give them more discretion, if for example, a 2:1 slope would be impossible because of rock or it would require removing trees or a- soils report said the soil was adequate. Ms. Thomas asked what would be required if there were public roads. She was told.that a 2:1 side slope would be required. She asked if all public roads could' be required Mr. Mawyer noted that the 2:1 side s%ope requirement is County-wide, and affects e~eryone's embankment slopes, and said that the slope of the driveway itself is not regulated, only the side slope. Private roads only come into play when you have three or more houses. He said that there were three types of roads under discussion: a public road which VDOT accepts and maintains; a private road which serve three or more lots; and, driveways which g6 from the lot line to the house where a private road goes from the public road to the driveway. Ms. Thomas noted that the MOD says nothing about the steepness or turning radius of a driveway, only the embankment. Mr~ Mawyer said the embankment slopes, as well as the turning radius of a private road, have been affected by the MOD, but only the side slope of a driveway. Ms. Thomas asked if there were a~y limitation on'The steepness of the private road itself. Ms. Scala noted that a private road currently can have a maximum slope of 16 percent. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Ashcroft Subdivision could have been built under the new provisions, and whether the white house (mentioned often as the big white house on the top of the mountain which sticks out like a sore thumb) could have been built as well. Ms. Scala said that white house has a private driveway, so the side slopes would have to be 2:1. She does not know if it could be built'because the lot is extremely long and narrow. Mr. Bowerman .asked if this ordinance would prevent this kind of developmenu in the future. Mr. Cilimberg said there was a building site that was actually shown to the Planning Commission during preliminary approval of the subdivision plat lower on the mountain but the Commission could not restrict development to it because they had alternative building sites. This ordinance would restrict them uo the building sites below the mountain line. Mr. Marshall said the most offensive thing, both 5o him and ~o those who desire ~o have this ordinance adopted, is a big white house sticking out in June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 47) 000~2~ the open where everyone can see it, and the ordinance will not stop that kind of behavior, so the ordinance will not have solved anything. He thinks the Board is trying uo kill a fly with a cannon to stop that kind of thing from happening in the futura. Mr. Perkins said the mountains are protected somewhat now. He would like to see a list of all existing County ordinances which provide protection to the mountains, as well as the entire County, and how the Mountain Protection Ordinance adds to that list. Mr. Martin said that by the time of the public hearing, he would like to see some examples of language that could be added to the Ordinance to allow for a special use per~iE for family divisions and whatever else the staff might think would be helpful. Mr. Davis said where a lot straddled the ridge area and the building site above the ridge area was better than the site below the ridge line, the Commission wanted a special use permit process to allow substitution of the building site from below for uhe building site above, but not to allow additional lots co be created. Mr. Cilimber~ said family divisions cannot be done beyond the' owner's development rights in any parc of the rural area, so this should not be considered in the context of mountain property either. Mr. Davis said the language proposed by suaff was to simply allow a transfer of a buildin9 site, and not for creation of additional lots above the ridge area.. If there is a pzece of land entirely above the ridge area and there are two development rights, under the proposed ordinance, only one house could be built and the land could not be subdivided to create any additional lots that are entirely above the ridge area. He Thinks Mr. Martin is askin9 for the poss'ibility for the Board to ~rant a special use permit to allow another lot to be created to use that development right. That is somethin~ that has not been considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas asked if this is strictly for family subdivision, and would be by special use permit, the way it is now. Mr. Martin said that over the years he has been a Board member, the Board has only approved those that were for family divisions. Mr. Davis said in the existing ordinance there is a special provision in the RA District that allows the Board to create addi- nional development rights by special use permit in certain circumsnances and the Board has done that rarely. That has been basically in a family subdi- vision situation where the Board ~ranted an additional development right. Mr. Martin said he would like the Board to have the power to create those addi- tional lots. Mr. Ron Keeler noted that the additional development right which has been utilized for a family division, is not available throughout the rural areas. It is not available in the reservoir watershed. Mr. Marshall asked whether the Board wished to 9o ahead with a public hearing next week. Ms. Humphris said the hearing had already been advertised. Mr. Martin said he thouNht the Planning Commission did a good job making changes uo the ordinance so it is more of a compromise_everyone can llve with. He wishes there were some way to Net that word out to the public before nexu week. Ms. Scala said she had a letter ready for mailing to the same property owners who were notified before the Planning Commission's public hearing. There will also be an advertisement in the newspaper outlining the changes made by the Commission. Mr. Martin noted that his work phone number should not be put in advertisements, his home number should be used instead. Ms. Humphris said she thought the Plannin~ Commission's public hearing was quite informative and she appreciates the people who appeared here today to address their concerns. Ms. Thomas said a lot of people had brought up the question of whether residential development should be preferred to forestry uses of mountainous properties. They seem to think that forestry uses would be a lot worse than residential development. She said the County's Comprehensive Plan is based on the idea that a~ricultural, and within that, forestry uses, are wkat the land is intended for. She asked for an opinion on this question. Mr. Perkins noted That houses are a Good' deal more permanent than cuttln9 of trees. Trees do 9row back, so that is temporary. He feels that many things are altered when a house is built. It disrupts ~he minatory routes of animals and birds, etc., and disrupts the natural flow of water. It June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 48} 0008~;8 does have a permanent and more severe impact on the environment than just cutting timber. Mr. Marshall a~reed with Ms. Humphris that the staff had done an excellent job. He commended Mr. Jared Loewenstein on the way he conducted the Planning Commission's public hearing. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker noted that every year the JAUNT Board asks their stockholders to meet and approve th~ appointment of board members. Each year he asks the Board of Supervisors to appoint a proxy so the Board members do not need to attend. He requested that Ms. Roxanne White be appointed as proxy to the JAUNT Board, until August 30, 2000. Motion was offered by Ms~ Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Ms. Roxanne W. White as the Board's proxy 5o act and vote all of the County's shares at the annual meeting of the shareholders of JAUNT, Inc. through August _30, 2000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Ms. Thomas said she received a notice that on Monday, June 8 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., there will be a meeting sponsored by the Metropolitan Planning Organization to discuss commuter rails. Ms. Thomas said she had attended the meeting the Board was invited to about Ash Lawn. She learned a lot of history that day. The main question was whet-her the building should be returned to the way the Monroe family had it, which would mean removing the pillars, which is the part one sees when first entering the grounds. Those pillars where added ih the 1920s in order to make the building look more Jeffersonian because it was f6r sale at the time. The ~roup decided that was not a good idea, they like the house the way it is today. Mr. Marshall said he has always been fascinated that a President of the United States lived in such tiny rooms. Ms. Thomas said that is what most school children visiting the home also speak about. The house was not designed by Thomas Jefferson. Ms. Thomas said that on. June 9, in the evening, the Sugar Hollow Dam reconstruction will be discussed at a meeting to be held in White Hall. The dam is having safety repairs made on it, and one of the questions is whether any of the repairs will allow for a flow of water down the River during the Summer which it does not allow for. Ms. Thomas said she had one thing she would like staff to think about. There are many committees working on many different things and there is an issue of how they all fit together and whether some are stepping on the toes of others. For example, the PDR Committee and the Mountain Ordinance, the Dark Skies Ordinance, the %gricuttural/Forestal Committee, and the agricultural portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The interconnection of these committees is something Mr. Bob Watson mentioned recently as something the Development Committee is interested in. Whether this could be a meeting of a development roundtable; she does not know what form the discussion would take. Mr. Perkins said there will be a meeting on June 4 about the Bargamin .tract in Crozet. Mr. Cliff Fox called about that meeting yesterday. He is working with the property owner on the concept, and they are =rying to find a way to g~t a higher density on the property. They have 51 units on less than -20 acres, and he is talking about 75+ unites. He has been working on several conceptual plans, and they are inviting the community to let them help choose a plan. Mr. Perkins said he has a Planning District Commission meeting tomorrow night, but he has asked his wife to attend the meeting. He believes Mr. Fox has invited the Board members just for informational purposes. June 10, 1998 (Regular Nigkt Meeting) (Page 21) oooa44 (Note: The next three items were heard together.) Agenda Item No. 9. CPA 98-01. Mountains. PUBLIC'HEARIN~ on a proposal to amend Chapter 2 of the Comp Plan, ~the Natural Environment," to include sec on ~Mountains" described by contour elevation; & to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map. (Advertised in the Daily Progres~ on May 2S'and June 1, 1998.) Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA 98-05. Mountain Overlay District & related provisions. PUBLIC ~ARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the Court,l; of Albemarle to add §30.8, Mountain Overlay District, & to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District estab- lishes a new zoning district to regulate subdiv & building activity above designated contour elevations in mountain districts, incl a requirement to obtain an SP to subdivide lots under 21 acs, & restrictions, such as no building' to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, the following amend- ments to Chapter 20 would apply County-wide: an amendment to add ~4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slop~ be created in any zoning district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also proposed no related Code provisions, including ~3.0 Definitions, ~4.2 Critical Slopes, & §31.2.2 Building Permits. (Advertised in the Daily Pro~jress on May 25 and June 1, 1998.) Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA 98-10. Mountain Overlay District. PUBLIC HEARING on a proposal to amend the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations & described as Mountains in the proposed §30.8, Mountain Overlay District, & in the Open Space end Critical Resources Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1998.) Ms. Scala said she would talk about the rationale for the maps, what the ordinance does and how it meshes with current regulations, as well as recent changes to the ordinence. The first part of the proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan t6 include a section on mountains including a list of mountains described by contour elevation. She noted that the contour plan is a policy document, and this section is especially important to the special use permit process. The second part is an amendment to the Zoning 0rd/_nance Text. She explained that the Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zon=ng district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour elevations in the mountain districts. The most recent draft of the proposed text is June 8, 1998. She noted that the third part is an amendment to the Zoning Map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations and are described as mountains in the Mountain Overlay District and in the Open Space Plan. She then referred to a soils map showing critical slopes based on slopes of 25 percent and greater, and she pointed out the MOD boundaries which have been identified by a specific contour line elevation located in the area where the critical slopes begin on a particular mountain. She noted the elevation of the critical slopes on the different mountains, and she said the intent, is to protect the mountain resources above this elevation where the mountains become visually prominent and where development is more difficult due to concentrations of the critical slopes. She pointed out that within the MOD boundaries, ridge areas have been delineated end in no case does a ridge area extend outside a MOD boundary. She noted that the ridge area is the highest and most prominent part of the mountain, and it is defined as land within 100 vertical feet of the montain ridge line and peaks. She added that the intent of the ordinance is to keep development off of the ridge area as much as possible. Ms. Scala stated that she would not go into detail about the background, but mountain protection was first discussed in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan. This particular ordinance came from a Mountain Protection Committee, which was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in 1995. Committee members felt that mountains had characteristics which distinguished them from other rural land, and they recommended an ordinance for the mountains ~o protect the environ- ment, scenic quality, economic benefits, ~eneral public safety and to promone more efficient use of taxpayer services by limiting delivery of services in the Rural Area. (Page 22) She pointed ou~ that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on May 19,1998 and recommended unanimously to approve all three amendments with three major changes. The first was to add a grandfathering clause which would allow existing residences such as in Ashcroft and Rosemont subdivisions which are located in the Mountain District to be added on to or rebuilt. The second major change was to delete the special use permit for small lots which meant that the owners could then use all the development for small lots, as well as the large 21 acre parcels within the MOD by right, provided they have a building site. The third change was that this Board should consider a special use permit to allow a cernain amount of development on the ridge area, if the owner could show that building there would cause less environmental degradation than building below the ridge. She then described what the ordinance does end called attention to the summary on Page Two of the staff report outlining the current regulations. The proposed MOD is an overlay district and it would overlay the underlying zoning district which is largely zoned as PA, Rural Area. There is also a sm~ll amount of mountain area zoned R-l, Residential. She commented that currently, building can take place in the RADistrict in mountain ~reas, if development rights exist and if a building site is available. She said a building site is defined as a minimum of 30,000 square feet of less than 25 percent slope, and the purpose of this is to allow location of the dwelling, the septic system and a reserve back-up area for a septic system. Also other zonin9 and subdivision requirements have :o be met such as access require- ments. She said if a parcel currently has no building site, one dwelling is permitted. She noted that she has been asked by many people as to why the existing regulations are insufficienu. There are a large number of development rights existing in the PA on mountains which could be used by right. She added-ttmat there are unique environmental concerns in the mountains and a site plan cannot be required for a single family dwelling, so there is no opportunity to review for issues such as design, safety and screening. She remarked that aesthetic ~equirements cannot be imposed, so therefore color is not an issue with which County officials can deal. There are no driveway regulations currently, so a driveway can be constructed across 25 percent slopes. She also noted that if there are multiple building' sites on a parcel, the County cannot specify building lower rather than higher. These are some of the things this ordinance is intended to correct. She reiterated that the ordinance provides that owners can build Within the MOD using all their development r~ghts and existing residences would be grandfathered. There are three options for building on the ridge areas. She said orginial!y if the only available building site on the parcel was on the ridge area, or if the whole parcel was in steep slopes and that was the only place to build, then the ordinance would allow a single family dwelling by right on the ridge area. This was to provide a reasonable use-of the parcel. She mentioned that this latest draft of the ordinance has two new secuions and both would allow, by special use permit, additional building on the ridge area. The Planning Commission recommended this change. She weft.on to say additional building can be done on the ridge area if it is a case where the owner can show that building on the ridge would cause less environmental degradation than building below the ridge area. The second is to allow one or more dwellings by special use permit on the ridge area when developments would otherwise be lost by not having the right to build there. She stated that both these options to build on the ridge area would have to meet the intent of the MOD, as well as general special use permit criteria in the Zoning Ordi- nance, including compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Scala mentioned that she gets a lot of questions as to whether an RPD is still required in the Mountain Overlay District, and she said it is required, and it is probably a preferable way to develop a property that has a mountain resource. Ms. Thomas called Ms. Scaia's attention to the fact' that she had inadvertently said an RPD is still required in the Mountain Overlay District when she had meann to say that it is still allowed. MS. Scala thanked Ms. Thomas for this correction. Ms. Scala continued with her presentation bysaying that the third major change to this draft is t-h~t the County Engineer has suggested new language in the constructed embankments and private road sections to allow greater flexibility in approv- ing constructed embankments which are steeper than a two to one slope. She explained that now pri~ate driveways musk maintain two to one slopes on the side slopes, but this new provision would allow the County Engineer to approve June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23 ] 000~6 waivers, and now they can go to any steepness~ She mentioned other provisions of the ordinance wh/ch would require private roads to have a 40 foot turning radius for horizontal curvature which is to allow emergency vehicles to r0ake the turn going up a private road to access a mountain~ property. She stated that another provision is that building sites must be shown on a plat. She explained that if a parcel straddles an MOD, then the building site must be located outside of the MOD, if one is available. She noted that there is always the option ~o sLCodivide within the MOD. She then referred to the Water Ordinance which defines land disturbing activity differently within the MOD. She said it is defined as 2,500 square feet rather than 10,000, and with the MOD, it is more likely that an erosion control plan would be required rather than just an agreement. These two provisions are to em~ure that soil erosion, where it is mote likely to occur on steep land, would be taken care of. She next introduced Joseph Samuels, who is a local appraiser, as well as a member of the County,s Purchase of Development Rights Committee. She noted that he spoke at the Board's work session last week, and Board members asked him to speak again. She said he will speak regarding the question of property values. She said Mr. Samuels will be followed by the County Attorney who will briefly discuss the issue of property rights. Mr. Samuels said he was asked to assist the Board in the value implica- tions of the Mountaiutop Protection Ordinance, and he has been asked to repeat his conclusions tonight that he presented to the Board of Supervisors last week. He noted that he is not bein~ paid by the Board and he does not speak tonight on behalf of any group or individual who is pressing for an advantage relative to the ordinance. He has been an appraiser for 26 years and a broker for 15 lears with offices in Charlottesville. He has appraised office buildings, subdivisions, rural land and farms, but his appraisal business today is primarily partial interests where he has calculated everything from air rights near airports to the loss of development rights on farming estates and conservation easements. Ail of his comments and conclusions last week and tonight are based upon adoption of the ordinance ~rith the Planning Commis- sion's recoumuendations. He then presented his statement. (See statement presented to the Board of Supervisors from Joseph T. Samuels, Inc., dated-June 4, 1998.) In his opinion, with the changes proposed by the Plannin~ Commis- sion, the ordinance is a very flexible document that can support the hi~hest and best use defined by the market in a manner that will not disrupt existing value. Mr. Marshall stated that he would ask the same question he asked Mr. Samuels at the work session because he would like for the public to have the benefit of the answer. He then asked if, in Mrs Samuels' opinion as an appraiser, he thinks this ordinance would have a detrimental effect on property values of the people who own mountaintop land. He said, though, Mr. Samuels' statement indicates that he does not think there would a problem. Mr. Marshall next inquired if Mr. Samuels has consulted other appraisers in the County who are doing this type of thing. He said he has talked to several since Mr. Samuels made his presentation to this Board, and they do not agree. He also askedhowmany people are inMr. Samuels' firm. Mr. Samuels answered that he has two people in his firm. There could be different opinions, and he does not think a round table discussion is the kind of thing where opinions are formed. He stated that an opinion is an opinion, and he has tried to support his opinion. Mr. Marshall wondered if Mr. Samuels does appraisals for lending institutions, etc. Mr. Samuels replied that almost all of his clients are private, and he does not ds work any more for lending institution~. Mr. Marshall then asked Mr. Davis if he wanted to speak. Mr. Davis stated that he was asked whether or not the Mountain Overlay .. Ordinance, as it applies to existing property rights, would constitute a takincj of the property which would require the County to compensate landown- ers. In exam/m~ng this issue, Mr. Davis said it is very clear that the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that a regulatory action is not a taking of property so long as there remains a reasonable use of the property. He explained that this is true, as the co%~rts point out, even if it limits a property owner's ability to develop or use the land as the o%nuer originally intended to use it, or evez~ if it does non al!ow the property to be developed in a way that may maximize the owner,s investment. He said, as has been (Page 24) described today, the Mounta/n Overlay Ordinance allows every existing property owner at least one residential development 'site, and it does not affect other existing by right uses or special uses. He stated that as proposed in the ordinance before this Board tonight, there are provisions which will allow all existing development rights to be utilized under appropriate conditions. He said as presented now under any legal standard that might apply, r/~ere are reasonable and economic uses of the property. He stated that for this reason, even though some property owners may feel the value of their property may be lessened by these restrictions, there is no legal obligation which would require the County to compensate any landowner for any claim for loss of property value, because it would not be ~ legal taking of any property rights under this ordinance. Mr. Marshall inquired if an appraiser, who does appraisals for banks and lending institutions, was to say the value of this property was substantially reduced, would the County be liable to reimburse any of these people. He noted that basically these are the people who set market values. Mr. Davis responded that the County would not be liable as long as there is a reasonable use of the property. To prove the property is of less value after the adoption of the ordinance would not constitute a taking .and would not require the County to compensate for any loss of value provided the property still has an economic and reasonable use. This ordinance would not take away such a use. In his opinion, the County would nou be obligated and. would never be required by court to compensate such a landowner. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Davis could defend this ordinance in court, if the County were to be sued. Mr. Davis answered that he could do so under existing law. Ms. Humphris said she wanted uo clarify the difference between a private driveway and a private road. She went on to explain that driveways serving just one or two dwellings are not subject to minimum turning radius require- ments. However, private roads serving more than two dwelling units are subjecu to these requirements. Ms'. Scala concurred with Ms. Humphris. Mr. Martin mentioned that he has several questions which he would like .to ask later before the Board votes on this matter. He would first like to hear what the public has to say. Mr. Marshall asked if he could get a consensus of the Board ss to whether they feel they want to vote on this issue tonight. He stated that in light of the number of people who .are speaking and the lateness of the hour, he personally does not feel he is going to be mentally up to making a decision tonight. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Marshall said he asked for a consensus of the Board because if the Board is not going to vote on the matter tonight, the public needs to know. There may be some people who will speak and want to leave the meeting after that, if the vote is not going to be taken. He reiterated that he does not want to vote on this issue at 1:00 a.m. He wants to have time, after the. public hearing, to discuss this in detail with the other Board members and thenmake a decision. Ms..Humphris agreed and other Board members agreed. Mr. Marshall informed the public that the vote wouldnot be taken tonight. The public hearing would be held, and the vote would be taken at a later date. He mentioned, again, that this Board will not have full member- ship until the first meeting in August, so the vote on this issue will not happen before that time. Ms. Thomas stated that she is not agreeing to delay the vote for this length of time. The Board meets next week. Ms. Humphris concurred with Ms. Thomas. Mr. Marshall reiterated that there will not be a full Board present next week. There is atreadya full agenda, and Mr. Bowerman is leavin~ that particular meeting early. Mt. Bowerman stated that if this issue is on the a~da, he will stay for the duration of the meeting. He had asked for the difficult items to be placed at the beginning of the meeting, so that if he was able to leave early, he could do so. ~e ~0. m~8 ¢~e~lar Night ~eeting) 000345 (Page Ms. Humphris commented that she sees no reason to delay the vote, once all of the public input has been received. She noted that there will be a week for the Board to consider the public comments, and they certainly should be able to vote next week. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not want to make this decision tonight either. He wants to be able to listen to the public and there may be questions the Board members want to ask staff beyond that point which may or may not be answered by June 17, 1998. He would like to reserve making the decision on the date to which the vote will be deferred, until after the public has spoken. Board members agreed. At 9:30 p.m., Mr~. Marshall'opened the public hearing. He stated that he would call five names at a time, so those people can come forward and be prepared to speak, in the hope that the meeting could move forward quickly. The first speaker, Ms. Pat Napoleon, voiced her utmost support for the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. She and her family own several parcels of the ridge top land in Cismont, and they treasure their privilege to serve as stewards of this beautiful property. She stated that many changes have befallen the Charlottesville/Albemarle area during the recent years. She added that the rapid population increase has made a colossal impact, and resulting pressures to manage growth have been a challenge to say the least. The area mountains offer one last opportunity for the County's citizens to savor the tranquility of days past. She commented that those people who had the privilege as children to live within and enjoy local mountain environment in an undisturbed s~ate would.like to see future generations have this chance to do likewise. She said it must be remembered that some of the glorious landscapes being discussed tonight helped to spur the dreams and visions of many noted early American individuals and families. She noted that the time has come for everyone to unite in a collective effort to preserve the historic and aesthetic qualities of the local mountain land. She invited any p~rson to travel through the mountainous areas of North Carolina and east Tennessee as she did not long ago. The visual alterations imposed during recent years are alarming, and although severe! protective ordinances have been enacted, in her view, it is too late for them. She stated that much damage has already taken place. She added that in short the elevated ground in Albemarle County is special and vulnerable, and more quide!ines are needed now to protect these pristine vistas. She said landowners, including developers, should consider the feelings of all who look toward these ridges. The. mountain land not-only belongs to her and her family, but ownership transcends these boundaries. She said consideration for fragile animal and plant habitat, as well as respect for neighbors, must be incorporated before imposin~ changes on these grounds. She thanked the Board members for their thoughtful attention to the matters at hand. She said it is her sincere hope that they will make this commitment tonight, and the vote will not be deferred long. 'She stated that enough compromise has ensued, and she asked the Supervisors to go the distance to protect the lands which have shaped the character of many before the present time and continues to do sc today. Mr. Ivo Romenesko remarked that he is present at this meeting as private citizen, and he is not engaged by any client nor is he representing any other group other than himself. He owns pr0perty, in Albemarle County, although it is not mountaintop property. He is a certified general appraiser and an MAI designated member of the Appraisal Institute, and he is owner of the Appraisal Group which is one of the largest appraisal firms in the State of Virginia. He pointed out that he has appraised real estate for over 28 years, and he has done thousands of appraisals of property in A!bemarle County for banks, private property' owners, corporations, governmental agencmes and others. He then stated that the property rights affected by the proposed Mountaintop ordinance do have value, and this raises the question of just compensation. In recent years he has done numerous appraisals of conservation and open space easements in this County, and in every case, the market value of the property was reduced =o one degree or another by conservation or open space easements. In every case, the owner was donating the easement in exchange for tax credit or a deduction. He added that, to his knowledge, the IRS has never questioned any of these valuations and, in fact, has cooperated with these donations of easements and the tax deductions. He pointed out that the Appraisal Journal, a publication of the Appraisal Institute, in its April issue states that most conservation easements range from 40 to 60 percent of value, and the more restrictive the easement, the lower the property value. He also mentioned that the National Park Service places significant value on mountains and has purchased land on Skyline Drive and the ShenandoabNational anne lO, x~s (Rep. ar Sight zeeting) 00034:9 (Page park. The Service continues to acquire scenic easements to protect viewsheds from the Park, but property owners are always paid for these scenic easements. He noted that the Service Authority pays for easements even when water and sewer easements benefit the property owner. The Highway Department purchases sight view easements, and in each of these examples, the public benefits and the property owner is paid. In his experience, he sees no evidence that houses on mountaintops diminish vatues of houses in nearby low lands. However, he has seen evidence that other things being equal, development rights contribute to value. He added that there is undeniable evidence that demand creates value, and if no one wanted to build on mountaintops, there would be no reason to protect that. If the mountaintops require protection from construction, the~ there must be a demand for the mountaintops which must, therefore, have value. He supports the goal of scenic preservation, but he also supports the rights of private property owners. The citizens of Albemarle cannot expec= to acquire something of undeniable value at' no cost. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Romenesko t3~at he had used up all of his allotted time.) After applause from members of t. he audience, Mr. Marshall reminded them that he had asked them ~t to applaud. However, he explained that if future speakers ask for members of the audience to stand in support, that will be fine. Mr. Charles Trachta, President of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association (ANA), read a statement from the Executive Board of the ANA. He indicated. from the statement that the Mountaintop Preservation Committee has been struggling to find a way to preserve this County. The preservation of the beauty of these mountains is not just for the pleasure of the eye, but it is for the environmental concerns of the area, the sportsmans' concern, the business and real estate concerns, and it is for the concern of every person who lives in Albemarle County, and even those who are just passing through: He asked Board members no think about why people move here and stay. He stated that Albemarle's government, its businesses, real estate and developers use the beauty of this County to sell it and make the County work and grow. The MTP Committee has not met secretly, and anyone or a~y group could have voiced their concerns and opinions.. ~e said for more than a year ANA has had an appointed representative to act as an observer to the Committee. He pointed out that ANA members have discussed the-Committee's work at numerous meetings, and the consensus of the meetings show that ANA is in support of the ordinance in its ori~inal form. He added that ANAmembers are willing to accept the cgmpromise the Planning Commission has sent ~o chis Board so some protection of the mountains is enacted. He stated that when the MTP Committee completed its work, the opposition decided to voice its disapproval. He said when the Supervisors are deciding whether or not to support this work, and they are considering the opposition, they need to ask themselves where these people were when the Committee was meeting the last few years. Since the MTP Committee has finished its work, he asked how many developers have submitted site plans so they would not be affected by this ordinance. He understands the Supervisors cannon vote tonight because of the number of speakers. Yet, he asked if they postpone this vote, that they instrucu the Planning Depart- ment non to accept any site plans after today until a vote is taken. Mr. Donald Lyon, a member of the Atbemarle ~eighborhood Association and President of the Raintree Homeowners Association, supported the statements of Mr. Trachta. However, he emphasized the need for the Board of Supervisors to vote on this ma=ocr tonight, and if not tonight, in a few days. He said one mountain is already threatened due to a subdivision plat, and other subdivi- sion plats have already been filed. He.referred to a list of nine development proposals as of June 2, and he said to think there will be no development on these mountaintops is clearly refuted. He asked the Supervisors not to let Albemarle County lose any more mountains or ground because of the Supervisors' inaction. He said it is in the County's best interest for the Board to vote on this issue tonight and not to delay this action. Mr. Jim Lark, a resident of the Buck Mountain ~ection of the County and Secretary of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, stated that as a Virginia hillbilly by both birth and conviction, he yields to no one in his love for the beauty of the mountains of this area. However, the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance ~s a regulatory taking which improperly restricts the right of property owners to the peaceful use of their proper~y. There are several ways =o protect the mountains such as restrictive covenants and the purchase of development rights which do not violate the rights of property owners, a~d he urged the Supervisors to vote against the proposed ordinance. June 10, 1998 (Re~/lar Night Meeting) (Page 27) OO03$O Captain Chris Byrom, of the United States Air Force, remarked that he flew in from Seattle, Washington to speak tonight. He has been kept up-to-date by his parents and family as far as the discussions and proposals that have been presented on this issue, and he is disturbed by the absence of discussion on the effect this proposed ordinance will have on the citizens who live wi~h~ the proposed Mountain 0veriay Districts. He commented that mos~ of these citizens are not, as they have been characterized in the full page ads in t-he Daily Progress, the =ichest citizens of the County. These are often people who have family histories of having lived here for generations. They drive 20 year old cars because this is what they can afford, and the homes they live in are not ones they have purchased through green expense, but they are ones which h~ve been passed down from generation to generation. He added that for these families who are citizens within this area that are going to be directly affected by the proposed ordinance, he would like to point out some of the unfair costs they will bear. He said for the right to submit a building perusit, and not to even Set it approved, somebody has to have a final plat showing an approved building site. This requires several thousands of dollars of expense paid to a surveyor to prepare the final plat, and it still does not mean they will have the right to build. For the protection of water resources, it is proposed they will have to come up with an Erosion Control Plan, and several thousand dollars will have to be paid to' de~el6p tb/s plan. Ee said even with the proposed changes mentioned in the beginning of this meeting, it w-ill have to be proven there is less of an environmental impact to build on e ridge than in a lower area. He asked what professional will have to he paid several thousands of dollars to prove t/~is fact to some bureau- crat's satisfaction. There will be many other additional expenses involved with moving the building site from a flat area on to a slope which will include building site preparation, the design of the home and its foundation and preparation of septic fields and wells. He added that mowing equipment to keep back brush from the home that is satisfactorily safe for operating on slopes will have to be involved. He said implementation of this ordinance constitutes an imposition on the citizens and allows orl~y the rich to develop their land, and he believes this constitutes a reprehensible change in the character of Albemarle County. Mr~ Bob Byrom, father of the previous.-speaker, stated that he is speaking for the other five of his children and 13 grandchildren who cannot be present tonight. , He opposes the Mountain District plan and feels very strongly that the proposal is unworkable, unfair and completely unnecessary. He said it is a very bad solution to a problem that does not exist. Ke..then noted his concerns-about the arguments that have bean used to promote support of th~s plan. He recalled the public hearing held by the Pla~_ning Commission where the planners used slides to project what could or would happen in this County. The major commercial developments were very large, there were gigantic condominiums, and there was a building growing out of the top of the mountain. These areas appeared to be much lar~er than Wintergreen. The sites of these points were not identified by the hriefers, ~nd he was told by in the audience that they do not even exist in Virginia. This Board and the County with its existing rules have the ability to control this type of commercial development. He referred to Mr. Davis' comments that this im not an unreasonable taking of property rights. However, Mr. Byrom believes the most reasonable use of farmland is to be able to build farm residences on the land. He noted that he has by letter asked the Director. of Planning and Development in Albemarle County to tell him what effect this ordinance will have on his 818 acre farm. He has not received even a pem_ny postcard. He then referred to Mr. Samuels' remarks that 997 acres were being transferred with ten de%~e!opment rights. He said with b_is 818 acres he has nine develop-- ment rights. Yet, the projection which was given at the Planning meeting showed a uniform color of amber going from Charlottesville out to where he lives in t-he northwest corner of the mountains as the development that will happen in this County in the absence of this ordinance. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Byrom that he had used up all of his time.) ,Ms. Jean Kolb stated that she and her husband own 100 acres of mountain land including 3,000 feet of ridge line all within a prolmosed Mountain Overlay District, and they strongly support this ordinance. She said using the estimate of a Planning staff member that there are something like 7~000 division rights in th~ proposed MOD, there is the possibility of several thousand houses to be built on these mountains, because the ordinance says every parcel has one building right. There is the tendency for every parcel owner to think that the one house he wants to build won't disturb the mountain much arid maybe it won't. ~owever, the cLunulative effect of this potential for several thousand houses with their associated roads and power lines certainly June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) 00035'1 will disturb the mountains, and that is why it is proper and right for this Board to set up some building rules. She went on to say it is not just proper, but it is the Supervisors' responsibility to protect what everybody agrees is a resource that this whole community values. She stated that one house won't put a strain on the County emergency vehicles but !,000 will, and one house won't disturb w~ldlife, but 1,000 will. She thinks the grouse and the black bears that have been using these mountains for 5,000 years without damaging them have earned the right to remain there. She noted that people have said they take good care of their mountain land, so building rules are not needed. She agreed that good care has been taken of the mountain land, but nobody knows who the next two or three owners are going to be, so she feels long term pr~te~ticn is needed. As to property values, Ms. Kolb stated that everywhere in the United States where Wilderness areas have been desig- nated, people are flocking to live near them. The opportunity to buy a piece .of protected land is likely to make land in or partly in these MODs much sought after in years to come. She stated that it cannot be said too often that this ordinance does not prevent anyone from building a house on a parcel of land. She said it sets the rules, but there is provision in the ordinance for valid exceptions of every one of those rules. She asked that the Supervi- sors not delay action on this issue, because some people are going to rush to subdivide. She suggested putting this framework in place ar~ then, as recommended in the 1996 version of the Mountain Protection Plan, work out a system for the transfer of. development rights, or the purchase of development, or perhaps for some compensating tax re!ief~ She asked that the Supervisors pass this ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission so that the mou/%tains enjoyed by the last three generations of Albemarle County residents will be here for the next three generations. Mr. Brad Barnhill, a member of the local Jefferson Area Libertarian Party, said he has some very fundamental views on this issue. He added that he is sure everybody wants the areas in question to be protected, and it is his firm belief that the property.owner is a far better steward for his children's future than any other. If he understands the question before this Board, it would seem the County is attempting to protect the interest of one group of people against another group. This is not the proper use of govern- ment force. He stated that under mob rule, any group of people together can prevail their interests over any other smaller group. He went on to say the true purpose of government is to protect the natural rights of the individual from usurpation by the majority. T~e. County officials act as thou~Jh they own the property in question when clearly they do not. He commented that every- body has a natural right to absolute ownership of their property, and for the County to impose the'interest of the many over the rights of a few, he feels is robbery. He asked if it real!y matters if the robber wears a badge or a mask. He thinks not, and it is his hope that the Supervisors feel the same. He said everybody has a natural right to life, liberty and properuy, and these three natural rights are supposed to be in the Supervisors' hands and under their protection. He asked the Supervisors to recognize their oath to protect the rights as secured by the constitution. Mr. Ed Strauss remarked that he lives in the western par~ of the County and right now his property is not affected by this ordinance. He said, though, as soon as somebody thinks a certain thing is desirable or it should stay a certain way forever, he or she will want it restricted. He stated that people who think something is nice or think they need something to survive want to tell the other people how it should be without taking into consider- a~ion how the property looks. He noted that the appearance of the properuy is a credit to the people and not to government. He bald open space and moun- taintops are all owned by somebody, and they are not just there for everybody to look at. They are how they are because the Owners want them that way. He commented that to say the Supervisors know better how to take care of this land is fundamentally wrong. He then questioned if mountains are at risk. He mentioned that there has been a Holiday Inn on Alton Mountain for 30 years, and he asked if anything has been built on the ridge line nex= to it. There is some building behind it, but he asked where the big expansion is on Afton Mountain. ~e noted that 1-64 was built thrgugh the Alton area, and everybody thought this was bad, but it is still there. He stated that animals are still there, and they get hit by cars every night. He asked what is more important than the rights of humans, and he pqinted out that human beings are Albemarle County's greatest resource. The government has the right to talk about holding mountains over people, but the people have the common sense. He added that h~nan beings created this place, and they will be here as long as it-is here. H~ suggested that the Supervisors should vote no because it is not about controlling people or controlling land. The mountains will be here June 10, 1998 (Recjular Wight Meeting) (Page 29) after everybody ~s gone. He reiterated that he asked the Supervisors to vote no, but if they have to vote affirmatively, then they need to consider a companion human being protection plan. They need to spell out to the ones who have children, who make their homes here, and who invest in this County what it will cost to continue to live here, because that is important, too. Mr. John Little commented thathe is representing Ms. Julia Campbell,. who owns 45 acres known as Lewis Mountain, a~d it is located off of Ivy Road, just on the cuff of the City/County boundary line. He said Ms. Campbell's property is presently zoned residential R!, and this zoning classification is for areas designated for residential development in community and urban areas of the County. The property is surrounded by nearby commercial and multi-family residential development, University properuy and a County water tank. He said if the proposed d~strict were to include Ms. Campbell's property, what was once earmarked for permitted residential development, will then be a protected area· He added that certainly this changes her economic expectations and the value of her property. He noted that to date only elevation and critical slopes have been considered as to whether or m mt her property should be in the district, but no consideration at all has been given ~o its location, which is an urban and community ~rea. The stated public benefits of the ordinance jusn don't have the efficacy in that area, and accordingly thus property should not be included in the proposed district. Secondly, he remarked that if this property is included in the district, the owner should be compensated for any change in value, since both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions prohibit the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. He said ownership of property consists of a bundle of rights that include the right to develop property, and when the government takes away development rights from this bundle, it may be required to pay. The law of inverse condemnation is alive and well in the State of Virginia. He mentioned that in the Prince William County versus Omni Homes 1997 case, the court left open as to whether the taking of just one right may constitute a taking. He added that interestingly in the same case, the County is reported to have paid $3,700,000 to another litigant to settle an inverse condemnation case when the County adopted re~-lations to implement the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. This forces the County to put its money where its mouth is. The general rule is that if a regulation goes too far, a taking will occur which requires compensation. He asked when does a regula- tion go too far. ' The law on this point is a muddle, because some believe the courts have created uncertainty on purpose so that government and property owners will work out thelr differences by meaningful dialogue in .a political process. He then respectfully urged the Board not to include Ms. Campbell's property in ~he district and to be mindful that when regulations go too far, landowners may be entitled to compensation. F~. Jim Hall stated that he and his wife own 100 acres of land that is affected by the Mountain Protection Plan, and they support the plan as it was originally proposed 100 percent. He noted the discussion about taking away individual property rights, and said he would like to offer some historical -perspective. He added that 200 years ago there was virtually no restrictions on property rights, and there really needed to be none. However, as technol- ogy, transportation and population of the. County have grown, it has been the duty of the Board of Supervisors t6 ~nsure proper development of the County's land. He thinks most rural landowners would'agree it is good that neighbors cannot put in a factory or a K-mart or McDonald's, or even 100 houses, on 50 acres of land. He noted that it has always been the duty of the Board of Supervisors to properly zone land. He recalled a gentleman's remarks at the Planning Commission meetin~ last month that only 15 or 20 homes were built in the mountain areas last year. This gentleman asked then what was the problem· Fir. Hall commented ~%at if this number increases to 25 or 30 over the next 10 years, which is a very real possibility, then over the next 50 years, there could well be 1,500'homes built in the mountain areas. He stated that just as former Boards have made tough decisions to restrict the rights of landowners, it is now this Board's duty to protect the quality of the drinking water, streams and the beauty of the mountains. He asked the Supervisors not to let the children and grandchildren wake up to mountains that are marked with development. He encouraged the Supervisors to vote for this legislation as originally proposed and to enact legislation which similarly restricts the developmen= of all rural land. Ms. Barbara Moon commented that mos~ everything she had to say has been said, excepu to say she opposes this ordinance. She said land is becoming scarce, and the best financial planning for a person's children is to give them property. She stated that it is hard to start a home this day and time 000353 June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) and sharing land with children is the right of parenus and not a Board of Supervisors' decision. She asked the Board to vote for the landowners. Mr. George Howard remarked that he has sent the Board of Supervisors a statement, 'but he would like to offer a few more comments. He and his wife own Red Brook Farm, which consists of approximately 200 acres, 60 of which are in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. This property has been in his family for 152 years, and there are no buildings in the mountains, and he does not propose to subdivide his property. He hopes to pass it on tohis children some day. He and his.family are opposed to this ordinance, and he wondered what the ordinance is about, anyway. Be said some say it is about appearance, but it is possible for people to clear-cut a mountain, yet a building cannot be put on a ridge. H~ inquired if the Board would rather have a clear-cut mountain or a Monticello on a ridge. He emphasized uhat he thinks it is not about appearance because a Monticello on a ridge is much more beautiful than a clear-cut mountain. Be said supporuers of the ordinance make many other claims for its being necessary, but these claims are fairly well covered by current regulations. He commented that the only thing this ordinance is about is control of personal property, and no one can convince him that the relegat- ing of use of land for agricultural and forestal only does not severely depress the va~ue of the land, and therefore, this is a taking. The County should compensate the owners for these takings and require a title to the land. He stated that if all of these people wish to see these mountains, and they wish for the property not to be changed, then they ought to be willing to buy it from the owners. Be added that this ordinance is about-erosion of the rights of property owners, because piece by piece, drop by drop, these rights are eroded away. He asked that the Board of Supervisors vote against the ordinance. Ms. Marian Dowe!l spoke against the ordinance because she wants the property to remain as it is. She said she does not own any property, but her mother and father have passed on, and left the pr6perty to their two children. She reiterated that she wants the prcperuy left in its present state. Ms. Ruth Wadlinguon, Co-President of the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville/Albemarle, stated that the League has had a committee studying - the Mountain Protection Ordinance for a long time. She handed in a copy of a statement earlier, but she would also like to make a few comments. She said most people want to assure that the natural mountain beauty making Albemarle County such a special place continues undisturbed whether for economic or aesthetic reasons. She stated that while all those families who have lived on the land for many years have an appreciation of the obligation this entails, there is a strong worry that accelerating development pressures will cause damages everybody ~ill regret. She noted that all zon=ng puts restrictions on what can be done with land. She pointed out that one of the latest primary concerns is the preservation of Albemarle County's water supply and quality, and many provisions the Supervisors are considering are designed to specifi- cally-deal with this issue. There are clearly differences of opinion as to what measures will ensure the best policies for the community at large, and some do not even think this is a valid goal. She stated that some very good suggestions have emerged from previous hearings, and the Planning Commission has recommended that the Supervisors adopt some of those. She added that allowing by special permit a building site on a ridge or plateau where it will be less harmful to the envzronment seems to be a sensible compromise. She went on to say some flexibility may help to avert the law of unintended consequences. She added that the League is most grateful to the people who have given their time and energies to creating and refining this ordinance, and she urged the Board to adopt the proposed zoning amendments in addition to the Comprehensive Plan. She said she now has a much ~reater appreciation for the job done by the Supervisors. Ms. Ninon Gore stated that she would like to see ~3_bemar!e County's mountains protected from developers~ Mr. Fred Gore mentioned that there migh~ need to be some more ~iscussion before there is a vote. He suggested that maybe some more people cou_Id express their views, even though there are a lot of people who are going to do so at this meeting. He said he does not think there has been enough discus- sion =o really examine what this ordinance is going to cover. He added that the concerns of the people who are going to be affected by it need to be addressed more. He is in the spirit of the proposal, but he will have to go against it, at this point. June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) 000854 MS. Frances Lee-Vandell commented that she likes the ordinance, and she likes the fact that families are coming together here from Seattle and other places to talk about how t. hey will deal with their family farms. The issue has to be brought up, and she hopes that with t. his ord/nance, the Supervisors will continue to keep the dia!o~ue open so there will be som~ way of advising people about intergenerational transfer of their family farms. This point needs to be addressed here in the Mountain Protection Ordinance. Mr. Eric Nielsen said he is a member of the Shenandoah Ecosystems Defense Group, which is a locally based nonprofit organization committed, to the sustainable conservation and restoration of the natural values of the Central Appalachians. He commented that his group supports the Mountain Protection Plan in it~ original proposed form with the exception of exemptions for intensive agricultural operations. The right to own private property is granted by the public, and the public has the responsibility to oversee its usage and to ensnr~ that public values are upheld. He said simply because money c~n be made in an enterprise does not not make the activity justifiable. He said if the Fire Department'and zoning regulations won't allow him to harbor native plant and animal communities in b~ someone be allowed to pave a mountaintop negati~ as natural and economic resources downstream ali Ocean. He asked if people should be allowed to beautiful mountains simply because they are dev¢ do. He said although he does not have the go~d Albemarle County's mountains, it does not mean stated that his home goes ou= his door, right ac edge of his yard, across the railroad tracks, ou into the mountains. He stated that he will walk he will fight to defend it from the thieves who wildness, which remains whether it is in his livi up on the roof top. The right =o own private pr at all. He added that it is a privilege which resources to afford it, or the good fortune to it is a privilege and a responsibility. He sta raw undeveloped material awaiting human initiati added that it is a fully and actively functionin livelihoods of countless organisms including al! County. He next emphasized that the exemption f should be eliminated. He said having grown up i: well aware of the d~mage to water quality, sceni resources that can occur due' to insufficient reg' industry and other large and intensive agricultu exception, he asked that the Mountain Protection proposed and that the public and County official beginning to honor the natural and cultural heri~ s small yard, then why should ely impacting people, as well the way to the Atlantic wantonly develop the County's lopers, and that is what they fortune to own land in is home is not there. He ross the property line at the t i~to the countryside and up through his home at will, and =ome to steal the precious ag room, on the back porch or ~perty is really not a right Dmes from having the economic ·herit it. He went on to say ~d that land is more than a ~e to make it valuable. He ~ systemsupporting the the residents of Albemarle ~r agricultural facilities ~ the Shenandoah Valley, he is : quality and ecological . ~ation Of'the'poultry :al operations. With this Plan be enacted as originally ~ together make this small :age of this beautiful place. Mr. Steve Blaine remarked that he is repre~ landowners whose.combined land accounts for over affected by this ordinance in the Mountain Overl4 his clients support the goals of the ordinance t{ mountain land, they oppose the ordinance in its { it would be impossible in the amount of time all( to express all their views, as well as their ar~ ordinance, so he has arranged for the next five of his clients, or are his clients, to address t! ~enting a group of mountain 8,000 acres which will be ~ District. He said while preserve and protect .%trrent form. He stated that ~ed during these proceedings ments in opposition tO this peakers who share the views .ese views. The Board will first hear from Mr. George Shoffner, who is a certified appraiser with over 13 years of experience in appraising Albemarle Coan~yproperty~ He added that Mr. Shoffner will comment on the proposed ordinance's-- effecton land values and will rebut previous statements made in an effort to &dvocate this ordi- nance as did Mr. Romenesko eartier. Next, he said Mr. Roger Ray will qpeak, who has over 40 years of experience in surveying, designing, building and inspecting roads. Mr. Ray will relate the effects of the proposed private road and d~iveway standards to his own property i~ the County. He stated that his remarks will demonstrate that at the very least,~ some additiohal practical and professional input needs ~o he given to the proposed measures to regulate road b~ilcling in the mountains. Third, Mr. Blaine said the Board will hear from Mr. Bob Buford, whose family has for decades owned over 1,500 acres on Buck's Elbow. He commented that Mr. Buford has maintained responsibly over four miles of roads in what will become the ridge area or Mountain O~erlay District. He:said Mr. Buford will share with the Board his deep concerns about this ordinance. Fourth, Mr. Jack Bocook, who is a community resident and substantial landowner, will share his views. Mr. Blaine noted that the Bococks and Scotts have combined holdings of over 5,000 acres, and these 000;355 June ~0, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) families have been excellent stewards andcaretakers of mountainproperty for over 100 years. Mr. Blaine said that Mr. Dan O'Neill will speak last from the viewpoint of-an owner of small mountain parcels, and whose parcels will be profoundly affected by the ordinance. He stated that when the Board members listen to these five speakers, they will hear~ as they b~ve heard from some of the earlier speakers, that these mountain landowners care deeply 'about their mountain property. He asked if the mountain landowners care so deeply and those in favor of this ordinance apparently care deeply about the mountains, then why is this 'a contentiousissue. -He said he believes the mountain landownerscan give some meaningful input to help improve the ordinance so a consensus can be reached. Mr. ~eorge Shof~ner stated that as a certified real estate appraiser, he has been engaged in the appraisal of real estate in Albemarle County for the past 13 years, and he is a lifelong resident of this area. He said he has been asked by Mr. Blaine, on behalf of Mr. Btaine~s clients, to comment on the proposed Mountain Overlay District. He mentioned that last week, as well as tonight, the Board listened to another appraiser exlDress the opinion of no evidence being available to suggest a loss in property value to those proper- ties subject to the restrictions of the Mountain Overlay District. He will respectfully disagree with this opinion. He pointed out that his opinion is based on sales data which he has researched, and it is also based on evidence from statements made by interviewed buyer's and seller's as well as their representing brokers. He stated that from a buyers' and sellers' perspective the most important element of the proposed ordinance will be to effectively eliminate building sites abeve certain elevations. He added that during the course of his interviews, it was made quite clear that most buyers would not pay the same for a parcel of land where a house could not be situated to their satisfaction as they would for an unrestricted property. Their primary objection was a reduction of views available from the lower elevations. He mentioned that several times he heard brokers state that their buyers would "walk away from such =ransacnions rather than discount the .price and accept the restriction." He stated that degpite another appraiser's research, which failed to find any measurable difference in values, it cannot be predicted how many transactions will not occur should the prospective buyer perceive the process or the restrictions to be too cumbersome. This is the invisible par= of the market reacting to the loss of certain property rights. He noted that when buyers and sellers can't agree on a meeting of =he minds as a result of real or perceived property restrictions, the affect on vatuesshould not be characterized as neutral. -He recalled that previously the claim was made that property owners or values won't be affected since the ordinance will be uniformly applied. He said because real estate is unique, though, no two properties are alike. Therefore, an accessible property of the mountaintop building site and expansive views afforded by its elevation will have a very different value from a remote timber tract with steep topography and difficult access. He stated that because their best use differs, their underlying values will also differ, and despite the uniform application the~impact on these properties could be very different. He said it is his opinion that not only the potential for loss in property values exist but in certain specific cases, it is very likely. Mr. Roger Ray noted that construction embankments have not been ad- dressed. He said he personally delivered a letter to each Board member with a packet of V DoT's standards for design of embankments today, and he hopes some of them have had a chance to look at this information. He said VDoT's design criteria for embankments to serve a!l roads in Virginia, including primary, interstate and secondary, have seven different designs for the embankments, and four of them include slopes steeper than the two to one slope as proposed by this ordinance. The best way to share his opposition to the ordinance is to relate how it will personally adversely affect him, and it will affect each and every property owner in all of Albemarle County the same as ~t would.him. He noted that the embankment issue is not just in the Overlay District, but it is Countywide. He said he has spoken to at least 25 people in the last couple of days, and not one of these people realized that this embankment issue was Countywide, but they thought it was only in the Overlay District. He stated that he would like for the Highway Commissioner, at some point, to ask all of the folks here tonight how many of them under- stand that this is a Countywide issue. He remarked that he owns approximately 25 acres on Route 602 in Southern Albemarle County in the Sco~tsville Dis- trict, and it is a beautiful wooded lot that faces the Rockfish River. He pointed out that the building site on this tract of land is approximately 140 feet higher than the existing public road, and there is no other suitable building sate on this property except on top of the knoll. He explained that ~une 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 000356 ~o construct a driveway, which would come under the embankment ordinance, to the building site would require constructing approximately 600 feet of road in natural ground slopes ranging from five percent cross slope to 30 percent cross slope. He said once he gets ready to build this.driveway during the next two years, if this ordinance is in effect, he will play havoc with his parcel of land, because it will appear he is building a major roadway instead of a private driveway. He noted that the difference between embankments of a one to one slope and a two to one slope, is that if there is a 30 percent cross slope, there is approximately three times more surface area to he disturbed, ge said it is not the slope of the embankment tb~t should be the controlling point but, instead, it should be the reclamation and stabilization of the driveway. He then thanked~each Board member in advance for voting against, or making drastic changes, in this ordinance. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Ray that he had used up alt of his time.) 14r. Robert Buford noted that t/trough a private corporation his family owns approximately 1,400 acres near the crest of Buck's Elbow Mountain in western Albemarle County. He Said his family began acquiring this property in 1964, and they have only built one dwelling on the property which was done in 1969. There are no plans for development or to build any other buildings on the property, but he hopes his children and grandchildren might have the opportunity to do so in the future, if they so desire. He pointed out that he is sympathetic to the purpose of the ordinance of preserving the scenic beauty of the mountains, but he opposes the ordinance because of what he considers be serious defects in it. The definition of ridge ares is too broad, and it fails torecognize that the tops of these mountains are basically flat or gently rolling. There are pastures and not stiff ridges. He mentioned his property where the ridge area ranges in width from 1,000 feet to 1,700 feet and includes a total of 300 acres on which only one dwelling could be built. He then recommended that only land within 30 feet elevation from the ridge line be embraced within the ridge area or tentatively that the width of the ridge area be limited to 100 feet on either side of the ridge line. ge next referred to the second defect, which Mr. Ray had already ~ntioned, ~elating to the embankments. He said it is utterly unrealistic to impose such stan- .dards on mountai~ roads with a two to one requirement as far as slopes are concerned. He pointed out that the State and Federal Governments do not comply with such requirements, and all people have to do is drive on 1-64 from here to Richmond, and they will see banks ranging 45 degrees or more. He suggested people cross over Afton Mountain or Ragged Mountain, and they will see the same ~hing. He called attention to the Jarman Gap Road which provides access to Buck's Elbow Mountain, where slopes no less than 45 degrees re~/larly be found, and there are some as ~m/ch as 60 degrees. He told Board members that the cost of building to their requirements would be prohibitive, and it would do unnecessary destruction to trees, vegetation and disturbed property which simply is not necessary. Be mentioned that there are already numerozzs roads in these mountains and some are 100 years old which feed old cabins where families used to live. They are loggin~ roads but they are kept open now to fight forest fires. He remarked that he has personally taken care of approximately four miles of these roads, and he keeps them openj so they can be used as a means of access for farm equipment or if there is a forest fire. Be submitted that it should be proper to use these roads as a means of access to a building site'rather than force him to build a new road which would destroy a great deal more of the surface area than would otherwise be the case. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Buford ~hat he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Jack Bocock stated that he is a resident of Charlottesville and a landowner in southwest Albemarle'County near Rockfish Gap, and his family has owned this land for nearly 100 years. He said he uses this land, and the buildings on it, as a second home and vacation spot for his extended family. He pointed out that-durin~ the last 75 years, one additional house has been added to the property. He stated that he isclearly not speakin~ against this ordinance because of a hidden fast track development agenda. He said his family has always endeavored to be not only good and responsible stewards of their land, but also good citizens in this community. He noted that his family has opened their property to the public in order to raise funds for local fire and rescue units, and they have assisted the tourist ~ndustryby participating in Garden Week, as well as to let Boy Scout troops use the land for camping, and they are proud to have been able to offer their land to local ROTC units for their training needs. Re stated that his family memberq are very fortunate to own land in Albemarle County; and they understand that there are distinct res~onslhilities that accompany =he privileges of ownership. He commented that he and b_is family members arein favor of ensurin~ that the 000357 June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) County has the ability to red,elate the developmentof its natural resources, and they. support the general purpose of this ordinance. Nevertheless, he does nou believe that this proposal has been properly vented by all of the affected parties. He said he has been coming to Albemarle County his entire life and has lived year rou/id in the County for dearly five years. He apologized that he has not kept up with local politics better than he has done, but he said he was not fully aware of the implications of the proposed ordinance until shortly before the last public meeting. From his perspective, this ordinance appears to be on a type of schedule that stifles mixed input and proper debate. He said no matter the fate of this proposal, it is not appropriate to reduce 1the private property values of the citizens this Board represents without a full and broad based discussion. The currently proposed ordina~ce is unduly broad and needlessly punitive to landowners who have, in many cases, consistently tried to promoue the interests of the community and respom~ible use of the land. He then urged the Supervisors to delay action on this ordinance until they have had time to carefully consider the position of existing lendowners~ who do not intend to develop their land for commercial purposes. He also a~reed with the gent!emanwho suggested earlier that no further applications for subdivisions be accepted, and he hopes the Supervi- sors will implement this suggestion immediately. Mr. Dan O'Neill reported that his family owns four small parcels on Buck's Elbow and Camp Mountain, and three of these parcels lie partly in and partly out of the ridge area. There is no question that these parcels will be severely.negatively affected by this ordinance. He pointed out that in each case the natural building site is at the top of the ridge, in an open very !eve1 area. He noted that the access road leadin~ to the parcels is at the top of the ridge, and he would be forced under this ord//Lance to forego this natural building site on a level open spot at the top of the moLu%tain and build a long driveway of probably 1,000 feet or more over steep ground, as well as clear a wooded area for a building spot which would be far inferior lower down where the vlews would not be as good. The value would clearly be affected, and anyone who was willing to drive up the mountain to get to th~s parcel would not pay the same price if he or she were faced with the obliga- tion to spend more on road and site construction for an inferior bu/lding site. Also, forcin~ buildin~ off the top of the ridge is not consistent with the goals of the ordinance, and he is sympathetic with these goals. He stated that forcing residents to disturb more ground .could cause the possibility of greater soil erosion, as well as a greater scarring to the mountain, and it is ill advised. He mentioned the provision for a special use permit mechanism to possibly make allowances in certain cases for buildingsites, but he said many landowner~ do non feel the special use permit is the right mechanism to allow for circumstances such as this. The reason is because it is such a politi- cally charged issue, and he t/~inks a lot of people feel that if they have to come before this Board for permission to build on the ridge, there will be tremendous public opposition. The same groups of people who have taken out full page ads inthe Daily Pro~ress are likely Hoin~ to oppose even the most reasonable applications. He added that, finally, he feels he has to express his strong feeling that landowners have not been-given an opportunity in this public hearing stage of the process to fully express their views. He said a week ago this Board held a work session at which there were four speakers, and every one of the speakers spoke in support of thi~ ordinance. He went on to say every one of the speakers were given ten to fifteen minutes to express their views, and as this Board can see, three minutes is not enough time for members of the public to express their views. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. O'Neill that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Gary Westmoreland re~rked that he is Chairman of the Jefferson ~-rea Libertarians, which is a political group strongly supporting the right of individuals to own and use their proper~y as they see fit as long as they respect other individuals' equ±valent right to do likewise. He noted that his group has circulated a blue flyer tonight su~unarizing its position of opposi- tion to the proposed Mountain Protection 0rdina/lce, and the oppositio~ is twofold. First, he pointed out that the properny in the Mountain Overlay District, and the rights attached to it, are and should remain under the ownership and control of the property owner and not the Albemarle County government. Secondly, the mountains can be protected without destroying the right to own and use property, which he referred to as property rights by protective c6venants and the volu~tarypurchase of property by those seekin~ to retain the mountains in an undeveloped state. He added t~t the creation of the Mountain Overlay District h~/ the Planning Cormnission is an attempt to create co~mnon ownership of the mountains within Albemarle County, starting at 700 feet in elevation, by regulation and control of the use of private June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~S~ {Page property. The right to own and use property as the owners see fit in the Mountain Overlay District is abridged by this ordinance., and there are real economic burdens imposed on the property owners. He went on to say all of this can be avoided by the rejection 6f this ordinance. He commented that if the Board of Supervisors, in its collective wisdom, wishes to protect the mountains by regulations and controls contained in this or any other ordi- nance, it constitutes the taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that states in part, "nor shall private proper~y be taken for public use without just compensation.- He also men- tionedArticle I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. He told the Board members that if they approve this ordinance or a similar one then they have a legal and moral obligation to compensate the affected property owners and create the mechanism to do so. Ms. Charlotte Hogue asked why should present owners of mountain land be subjected to the unfair taking of their property just to satisfy those who want to use this land to serve their interest. She went on =o say unless all property in the County is devalued accordingly, this is blatant discrimination for a minority of landowners, not to mention the onset of socialism. She added that even though there is a grandfather clause mentioned as well as certain levels of height, there is no assurance that these won't be changed later by future Board members. She said members of this Board have non always honored commitments made by previous Board members. She gave an example of this by referring to the Landfill. She stated that owners of houses at 700 feet of elevation and above have been handed a windfall at the expense of the other mountain land owners, and she asked if this is fair. She said it is not. She wondered if those so interested in keeping the view are willing to buy the land. They are not, they only want to take it. The same people supporting this ordinance would be up in arms if their properties were devalued or its use restricted. She pointed out that a lifetime of work has gone into building up the value of people's property only to have it taken away. She added that it is not really being taken away, but it has been stolen by others who want something at someone else's expense. She urged the Supervisors to please vote against this ordinance. Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul commented that she owns mountain property which would be included in the proposed Mountai~ Overlay District. She said mountain land is not ~n~er pressure for development, and she has no faith that the Supervisors will control development with this ordinance. This ordinance, like the current rural zoning, has loopholes which will allow developers to give the County another Inglecress or Ashcroft, but it will prevent her and her children from building homes on their own land. She added that her family owns 175 acres of mountain property, and the hardwood trees which have grown there have paid for her education, for her sister's nursing training a~d for many, many years of medical bills for nursing care for her parents. She said, at the same time, these trees have spent 24 hours a day filterin~ and purify- lng the air for County Citizens to breathe. She remarked that her family has been good stewards of these beautiful mountains, and they will continue to do so. She stated that with this ordinance, County officials are taking away the use of her property rights. They are not only robbing her of monetary va!us, but more importantly to her, they are robbing her and her children of the personal utility of their resources. She asked the Supervisors to remember how they felt when~-DoT representatives said the Westei-n Bypass would be built no matter what a majorit~ of the people here needed or wanted. She added that she has the same sick feeling~ in the pit of her stomach now whenever she reads or hears about this ordinance. She stated that it is not needed or wanted, it is not fair to the people who own the land, and it is not right or constitu~ tiona!. She said it is ~he wrong solution to a problem existing only in the minds of people who don'~ own the land but somehow thin3( landowners should maintain it at their own/expense for others' viewing pleasure. She went on to say if the County officials truly want to preserve the mountains, then they should consider buying t~em. .She added that they can do the same tb.ing Governor Glenn Den~in~ is doing in Maryland where the government is buying wetlands, lakes and other natural areas to preserve them for all to enjoy. She said it can he done, and it is bein~ done, and County officials can do it here. She suggested that all that has to be done is to raise the taxes on the low lenders' properties to make funds available to buy the mountain land. She remarked that then the County officials could make parks all over Albemarle County and not allow any new buildlnNs there. However, she told them that when they do this, they need to make sure there are enough funds available to properly maintain the mountains, because the people who are here now won't be there then to take care of them anymore.. She asked the Supervisors to please consider this option, rather ~%an taking the property rights from the land June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 000~S9 owners. She said if Albemarle County owns it, then Albemarle County can control its use, but while she owns it, she should control its use. She urged the Supervisors to vo=e no on this unfair and unconstitutional ordinance. She then asked all of the people who were still present at the meeting, and who were against the ordinance to stand (approximately 100 people responded). Mr. Joseph Pratt said he and his wife own a farm of 180 acres near Stony Point, and the land he owns is a mile from the ridge of the Southwest Moun- tains, and it is fully a quarter of a mile outside the 700 foot elevation that has been indicated as the Mountain Overlay District for the Southwest Moun- tains. However, the P!annin~ Commission has identified an area of from 100 to several hundred feet in circumference. He stated that although his land is at exactly 700 feet or n~ more than 720 feet on part of it, because this is the highest point of any surrounding area, it has bean designated as a ridge area subject to the highest restrictions in the Mountain Protection Plan. He said in this area of 700 to 720 feet, he is restricted as much as someone at the top of the mountain whose land lies at 1,208 to 1,400 feet. He reported that he has spoken =o people in the planning Department several times about this matter, and he has asked them if this is not perhaps out of the intention of the ordinance. The response has been that a line had to'be drawn somewhere, and in order to be fair, his land would have to be subjected to the same restrictions. However, he stated that in this area all other land below the ridge of the Southwest Mountains and continuous with it between 700 up to 1,000 feet is not subject to the same restrictions because it is.not a ridge area. He understands he is not the only person in a similar situation, and he has identified another property of five or ten acres on this fragment of mountain between 700 and 750 feet which has also been designated as a ridge area. He noted that his land has been in his family for 35 years, and the family has been very environmentally responsible. He pointed out that his fa~ly has designated a road along the edge of the property which runs past this area, and all development on the farm on the entire 100 ac=es that is in Parcel Two and which is adjacent to this road, has been restricted. He mentioned that ~e is unsure exactly where the 700 foot elevation line ru~s, but he will be at great expense to prove where it is and where he can develop. (Mr. Marshall ~informed Mr. Pratt that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Frank Kessler indicated that two years ago, one year ago and six months ago he certainly opposed the Mountain Ordinance. He said he talked to Mr. Marshatl about the matter over two months ago, and yet he finds himself in great admiration of the mountains. He statedthat he has changed his view since the Planning Commission meeting, andhe now feels the changes that have been made giv~ fair utilization of the property in the mountains. He men- tioned that any time there is an ordinance, people always feel there is a problem with their rzghts, and he has felt the same way. He recalled the same feeling with the~Sign Ordinance, but he th/nks Albemarle County today has a better streetsoape with 12 foot signs being no more than 32 square feet in size. He then referred to the farmers who opposed the Chesapeake Bay~Act when t~eir property was involved, but it is apparent the decision paid off when the results of fishing are seen in the Chesapeake Bay today, along with other conservation requirements. He added that: he thinks a great community for everybody is what is really important, and asked the Supervisors to do something which he thinks sometimes government does not do. He said govern- ments plan and implement things, but sometimes they don't evaluate. He stated that he would like to see a work session set for 18 mo~ths to two years from now so some of the problems being heard tonight can be evaluated. He added that the Supervisors can meet forever, but nothing can be determined until the pro,ram ls implemented' but they must be there to evaluate and to change things. He referred to the fact that some people are suggesting that the ordinance be approved tonight without site plans, etc. He said he thinks anything in progress or anything submitted to the COunty should be reviewed and continued, and he asked the Supervisors not to undercut any project that is already in prc~jress.' He said people are asking for 30 or 40 development rights, but he believes everyone is looking for 1cng term preservation. He added that he believes there are good uses involved with this ordinance since the proposed changes were made. Ms. Babette Thorpe read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environ- mental Council urging the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Mountai~ Protec- tion Ordinance and asking that the requirement for special use permits to develop small lots in the Mountain Protection Overlay District be restored. She also noted that the PEC is askin~ that the Supervisors not delay their vote any longer than n~cessary to digest the comments they wil~ be hearing this evening. (See s~atement =o the Board of Supervisors d~ted June 10, 1998 ~=e lo, ~.s (Re~.ar Night ~ee=~g) 000~360 (Page 37) ..- from the Piedmont Environmental Council.) MS. Thorpe next talked personally about the fact that she could not stand up in front of this Board to say she has hundreds of acres of mountain land and offer support of this ordinance. The truth is she owns about one fifth of an acre. However, Mr. Birdwoods overheard her lam~t and gave her permission to use his name and his acreage. She said on behalf of'Mr. Birdwoods, whose family owns approximately 1,500 acres in t_he App!eberryMou~tain area, she wishes to state that they whole- heartedly endorse and support this Mountain Protection Plan. Ms. Karen Dame spoke on behalf of the members and Board of Directors of theCitizens for Albemarle and asked the Supervisors to adopt a Mountain Protection Ordinance this evening. The group members more strongly favor the & provisions of the ordinance as originally presented to the Planning Commission on May 18, 1998, and they especially urge the Board of Supervisors to resuore the requirement for a special use permit for the creation of small lots in the Mountain Overlay District. .They are also asking that the Supervisors add specific review criteria to ~ide the Planning Commission and this Board when reviewing these special permit'applications. She added that with such criteria in place, the public will know what types of development projects are likely to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and thus likely to gain approval. Next, Ms. Dame spoke as a resident of the White Hall Magiste- rial District. She said she supports adoption of a Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, and she feels the ordinance in front of this Board is a step in the right direction, although it provides weak protection and already includes tremendous compromises among competing interests. She emphasized that she believes this ordinance is the minimum that should be d6ne. She said she recognizes thatnew more restrictive land use ordinances are experienced by some residents as intrusive and even as oppressive. However, the Planning commission's build out analysis of current by right development potential has shown a bigger picture, and without new action by County officials, the Consequence of the existing Zoning Ordinances will be an intrusive, oppressive alteration of the very features of Albemarle to one single feature which is intensive manmade development. She said she hopes a MountaintOp Protection Ordinance will be approved tonight and thereby 'be the first among many pro-active changes to the Zoning Ordinance, all of them boldly designed to prevent the future seen on the build out maps. Mr. DeForest Mellon urged the Board to adopt the Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said Albemarle County is defined in a large part by the beauty of its natural geography. He went on to say th~ public has long recognized this fact, and the University of Virginia Real Estate 'Foundation in a recent brochure has used neighboring pristine mountain vistas to advertise its new research park to outside interests. He stated that by 1971, the mountains surrounding Charlottesville were delineated as conservation areas, to recc~- nize their unique quality and to offer them nominal protection from develop- ment. He added that this is not good enough because high rise structures such as University Village now intrude on the view of the surrounding landscape and highly visible stark white houses with long eroding access roads now scar the western face of the Southwest Mountains. He said if measures are not now taken to protect what is left Of this unique natural heritage, it will disappear as everybody matches it happen. The Board of Supervisors has the . last uhance to decide in favor of this area's residents, for whom the forest and mountains constitute an enrichment to life, or a few professional develop- ers, who stand to enrich themselves by developing the mo~_ntain vistas. This Board will determine the'future of this fragile beauty. Mr. Matt Kayhoe stated that the three previous speakers have said what he wanted to say with the exception of the fact that he has a tremendous amount of admiration for County officials who are trying to plan ahead for problems before they strike everybody down. He said his experience has been that rural counties in Virginia have exhibited a tendency to collapse in front of the advancing front created by development and growth. He stated that he thinks the fact that County officials are taking this step, or even consider- ing a Mountain Protection Ordinance, is really quite important. He also added that the staff has done a marvelous job of putting things together, and he thinks it is a vone for all of Albemarle County's citizens. Ms. Jutie Courtanay Campbell informed the Board members that she owns close to 45 acres in Albemarle County just immediately west of Charlottesville beyond the University Apartments and St. Anne's School. She said many years ago during the 1960sj the State decided to put in a bypass from Route 250 to Route 29'which runs close uo Bellair. She stated that it dic%n't include her land, but it involved part of the estate from where her land was purchased in June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 38) 00036~ 1950, and her water supply was there. She said in the process t-he government took the water. She noted that where State officials wanted to put the highway, cars would have been under eight feet of water, so it had to be slightly moved. She emphasized that she was told this would enhance the value of her property. She pointed out that her husband is a lawyer, but he didn't try to practice real estate law in Virginia, since he was good at corporation business. They were paid for the taking of this water, after lengthy del'ays. She noted, though, at first it was being said t-hat the property was being taken, but t-he highway enhances the value of the property. She said it did not enhance ~ne property, and it didn't even touch it. She pointed ouu, too, that since it was a bypass, there was no access onto it. She added that this is one example, but ib is personalty known to her that the County has to pay for the taking, if it is taken without regard to any enhancement of any other value. She noted that this is in the Constitution. She commented that with all of the court cases on in~ernet, as well as all of the computer hookups, there doesn't have to be 95 lawyers across the country studying this issue, as were involved when she was exammning her water rights, etc. She stated that she is going to have a lawyer to represent her to make County officials pay for the taking of her property, and she invited all others who wished to join her in a class action suit. She hopes the Supervmsorswill be held individu- ally and personally responsible for the legal costs this will require, and she noted that this is possible. She stated that she means no personal rudeness, but if County officials involve citizens mn a court action because the property is being taken without payment, she expects them to either condemn by eminent domain and pay for it or leave them alone. She next commented that she looks down from Lewis Mountain on a lot of apartment roofs and some of the apartments she has been in are rather nice. The University surrounds just about all of the remainder of her property, and there are two or three nice houses at the foot of the hill toward Route 250 and ~nother one in the other direction. The water tank was installed, h~ it is not on her property. However, i-t has been said that the water tank is 100 feet below her level of the hill, so if this is the line, she is out of luck. (Mr. Marshall informed Ms. Campbell that she had used up all of her time.) Mr. Tom 01ivier, from the Schuyler area, said the mountains contain critical natural resources which provide essential habitat for native plant and animal populations, and they help create watersheds and provide drinking water for the urban population. He added that they happen to be gorgeous and economically valuable, although he thinks the greatest importance of mountains lies in the natural resources they provide. The surfaces of mountains are fragile and sometimes dangerous, and even history teaches that heavy prices are paid if mountain surfaces are treated roughly. He mentioned that public interest demands that development policies pay attention to the special costs and risks that mountain developments can entail. He went on to say the notion that localities cannot rightly regulate land uses strikes him as new, wild and untenable. With one exception, he asked that the Supervisors support the draft of the Mountain Protection Ordinance in the form considered by the Planning Commission prior to amendment. He said while he would like to see small lots allowed only by special use permit, he would suggest that a supporting document be developed to spell out the conditions favoring the granting of a special use permit. He added that such a document would clarify the implications of the ordinance to mountain land owners and could contain ~uidance from the Board of Supervisors on hardships and any other site specific factors which should be weighed in a review of a special use permit application. He stated~ that he believes this approach would be preferable to a broad weakening of the original ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lloyd Toms, Jr., from a sixth generation of Albemarle County residents, noted that his family has always owned mountain land. He said his family members have taken very good care of it, and if they had not, he is sure County representatives would have informed them. He stated that at the present, they still don't need the County officials' help or anybody else's help with this land. He commented that they paid for the land, as well as the taxes on the land. This proposal, in its present form, is a disaster. According to this proposal, as he understands it, County officials will tel! him where he can build a home and what type of road he will need. He then referred to a call he made to the Albemarle County Zoning Department yester- day. He stated that he asked the Zoning Department representative what rules and regulations would he need to follow to clear-cut lc~3s on his property, although he has no intention of doing so. The reply was that the person would have to get back to him. He snared that he then received a call from the Zoning Department at 9:00 a.m. the next morning informinN him that nothing was June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (gage 39) 000362 needed from the county. He wen: on to say this doesn't make sense, and somebody needs to rethink some things. Heremarked that he loves these mountains andhis family merabers love them. He said if others want to dictate what to do with his property, then they should buy his property. Mr. Perle Craddock noted that he lives in the Scottsvil!e District, he is a Board member of a volunteer fire company, he owns mountaintop land and he supports the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said people who own mountaintop land have a responsibility as good citizens to develop mountain property in ways to prevent erosion, give emergency vehicles better access and protect the scenic quality of the ridge lines which are responsible for much of the County's charaqter and economic prosperity. He reminded the members of the Board of Supervisors of their responsibility when. they took the oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia including those'laws which govern zoning and comprehensive planning. He added that Section 15.1 of the Code of Virginia specifically states that the Supervisors should improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the citizens. He commented that the Code also states that they must preserve a~ricultural and forestat lands, and all of this is to be done with efficient and economical use of public funds. He pointed out that developing the mountains threatens natural resources, agricultural and forestal land and the safety and general welfare of all the citizens in the County. He said it will affect higher taxes to provide for infrastructure of public services including fire and rescue. This is not'efficient and economic use of public funds, and it will lower property value a!l over the County, as well. He went on to say while a few wi!l profit from the mountains, it will. cost everybody else dearly. Consequently, he stated that he opposes any deferral of passing this ordinance because it will allow more uime for last minute under the wire development, as well as of plats, and it wi!l rob the County of one of its economic assets. He nexu referred to comments made by some of the speakers who indicated they did not understand why the ordinance is needed now. He said it is needed now for obvious reasons such as rapid growth, but this ordinance is also needed because the Supervisors are required by Virginia law to plan and zone to preserve the County's resources, agricultural and forestal lands and for the general welfare of the citizens of the County. He asked the Supervi- sors to remember when they vote that they have a moral, legal and fiscal obligation to the entire County. Mr. Dennis Woodriff, who owns mountain property near Stony Point, said what will happen with this ordinance is of ~rea~ concern to him because he owns ~pproximataely 60 acres of land. He commended the Supervisors for attempting =o protect his property, because he feels his investment is realiy only as good as it is secure. He stated that one of the most valuable parts of an investmenu is how secure it is, and if the land around him is protected, his investment.is much more secure. He recalled the time when he owned 150 acres of land in Orange County with about two miles of road frontage. He said he dedicated development rights to the Virginia Tourist Foundation and got a tax deduction because supposedly the land was now worth one third or one half of what it had been since now he couldn't develop it. He stated that a few years went by and some other people who were nearby also dedicated their land. He said then someone came along and wanted to buy his property with one of the reasons being, that he knew he was purchasing something which had the assurance of being protected in the future. He remarked that he got close' to twice per 'acre what anybody else in the ares had gotten, and one of the reasons is that people were buying something they knew would non be changing. He commented uhat some of the assumptions people are making about the devaluation of their property is possible, but are not always accurate. Mr. Gerald Carter stated that he lives on ridge top in the Southwest near Stony Point. He noted that he will profit very much if this ordinance passes, because he will not have any nelghbors, which is the way he wanted it. He added, though, that he doesn't think it is right, because people who own mountain land are not second class citizens. He stated that a majority of people in Albemarle County consider this property very precious, and there have been a lot of comments about how valuable this land is to the people in Albemarle County. However, they don't seem to want to put a dime behind what they say. He asked the Supervisors why they don't suggest that the people of Albemarle pay a few dollars more in taxes to protect the mountains, and they will find out how important the mountains are to the majority. The Supervisors would not believe the sacrifices some of the property owners m~ke to live in these mountains, because they care about them so much. He added that he does not think it is right the way the property owners are being treated. The property owners have invested very heavily in June ZO, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000363 (Page 4O) this, and the people who suppor~ this ordinance have invested nothing. Yet, the Supervisors are going to reduce the landowners' rights. He referred to the comment that the value of the land will not be changed. He said if he couldn't live on this property, the man he bought it from would still have it, and that man wouldn't have his money. The Supervisors have three choices. They can support this ordinance and support the majority of the people in A!bemarle County who want to look at the mountains. Or, they c~n have the moral courage to stand up for American principles of fairness and justice and vote against this ordinance. Or, they can start over again and include the landowners so they can protect their own land. Mr. Bruce Satl~-Auston aru~ou~ced that he owns land which would he included in the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said about 90 percent of his property is red land, and he owns approximately 31 acres of 25 percent or more. He'~tated that he knew this when he bought the land, and he tried to buy more llke it, but he hasn't succeeded. He added that he has watched in dismay as other people who did succeed started ~o develop'the land,- and where there were woods and forests, there are now two large driveways and a lot fewer trees. He urged the Board of Supervisors to support this ordi- nance in its original form with some guidelines for special use permits. He said Mr. 01ivier's guidelines appeal to him greatly. Mr. James Walker, a ~hird generation property owner in A3_bemarle County, stated that he owns land in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. He added that he appreciates the opportunity to speak to the Supervisors tonight, and he appreciates their patience. He said he also appreciates the intent of this ordinance, but he does not quite a~ree with the principle. He went on to say that the principieinvolves the idea that this ordinance is required so Albemarle County landowners do not destroy the natural beauty that everyone here wants to protect. He asked the Supervisors to realize that many of the people here would not have been willing to sell their land to developers long before there were zoning ordinances. He commented that many of the people here tonight are landowners who filled rocked in ditches and planted grass and trees long before there was erosion control ordinances. The natural beauty of Albemarle County which exists now is direct evidence that the property o%rners are good stewards of their land. Their presence here tonight is mostly to convey to the Supervisors that an ordinance is not requ/red to maintain the natural beauty of Albemarle County that the landowners have worked so hard to preserve from one generation to the next. He noted that the County budget is already stretched, and he asked that the money be spent in a wiser manner. Mr. Fred Scott stated that he thinks it is a good idea to save farm and timberland, and he agrees it is a good idea to preserve mountain land, but he thinks this ordinance can be improved. The ordinance does not provide for wise use of land, and this really concerns h/m, and it isn't fair. He stated that it is not wise because the ordinance is going to force development down off the slopes of the mountains and onto the very best farmland. He commented that the large lot requirement still in force is going to accelerate the rate at which the remaining farm and timberland in the valley will he used up. He said it has to, because there is no other land. He recalled that for 50 years he has walked all over his farm land and that of others. He mentioned that there are lots of places people can build in the mountain elevations where there are large areas o~ usable acreage which is suitable for construction, and careful and sensitive building techniques can easily make development not only practical and attractive but desirable. These building sites have real value, and when owners' rights are restricted to use their property, those values will be devastated. He remarked that if the Supervisors don't believe him, they can ask the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Federal Sovern- merit. He mentioned that several months ago he attended a meeting of the PEC. He said Ms. Scala was there, and she and PEC representatives e~plained how the Outdoors Foundation works. He stated that it is real simple. He added that the farmers give to the Foundation their development rights, and they suffer a loss in value. He emphasized that the value is real, and the loss is real. The loss is deductible under the Federal Tax Code, and a good pa~t of the loss is thereby recovera~ to the owner as he files his tax return. The public benefits, the owner benefits, and the public pays for those benefits. This is sound public policy, and it is designed to encourage citizen cooperation in the common goal. He said it is a very appealing program, and it is beginning to work quite well. However, these same people today are saying the loss of these same rights will damage the owners zn no way whatsoever. He said it is simply not possible that both statements are true. He told the Supervisors that their vote coulddevastate the financial situations of many owners, and much of their ec/u/ty is going to disappear, which is a fact. He said if an June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page ~1) 000~64 outside influence such as a new law or real estate either adds costs or decreases usability, then the real estate will decrease in value. The Supervisors should trust the outrage the mountain landowners have expressed. He went on to say people are smart enough to know when they are being badly hurt, and if the Supervisors rush to judgment with this impulsive, unwise and unfair legislation, they may have declared war on some of the County's most responsible citizens. However, if the Supervisors have the courage to take the time to convince or encourage landowners to work with them to protect the mountains in a cooperative way and under a mutual plan, then many of the County citizens will help them. Ms. Treva Cromwell said arguments pro and con about this ordinance reveal everyone agreeing on one important issue which is that everybody surely likes the mountains, and they would like to keep them the way they are. The ranks are broken, though, as far as what to do about keeping the beautiful economic asset which everyone seems to reco~nzze. She remarked that there are those who own mountain property who believe they have been good stewards of the land and, furthermore, believe government has no right to tell them how they can use their land. However, she pointed out that mountain lands are more valuable today partly because of services provided by goverrnnent such as schools, roads, fire and police protection paid for by the taxes of all the citizens. She stated that, on the other hand, there are'many values assocz- ated with mountain land ownership, but there are other values enjoyed by the general public whose property values are enhanced simply because they have mountain views. There are those who look to the mountains to protect the sources of the public drinking water supply, and there are others who simply enjoy the blue ridges that frame their environment. She asked if Albemarle County citizens are so sharply divided that they can find no common ~round as to the best solution for everybody, and she voiced her belief that common ground can be found. She said Albemarle County citizens carnlot simply stumble along with the status quo and be able to meet the pressures of growth which will inevitably bring more and more development to the mountains. She then mentioned the changes made by the Planning Commission in the original ordi- nance, which she thinks are reasonable. She added that she believes the ordinance can be the tool to maintain the County's quality of life, its economy and, according to Money Magazine, its reputation for being one of the best places to live in the United States. She said she is convinced that some kind of mountain protection is needed, and this proposal is a good su~jes- tion. (Mr. Marshall informed Ms. Cromwell that she had used up all of her time.) Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, reminded the' Supervisors that Crozet is a designated Growth Area and as such Crozet has its own special set of zoning rules and regulations to direct concentrated growth there. He statedthat he sees the Mountain Protection Ordinance as an extension of these zoning rules for the same reason, which is to protect the rural character of Albemarle County. He added that if this ordinance is not approved, the next time Growth Area community residents are asked to accept more development, additional congestion and more traffic, they will have every reason to ask this Board why and for what reason. He commented that it would be a mistake for the Board to assume that the Growth Area residents do not care deeply about rural preservation just because they live in Growth Areas. He n~-xt referred to a picture he had taken at Beaver Creek, and he noted the saying that a picture is worth athousand words. He said while Beaver Creek, itself, is very beautiful, it is the mountains in the background which make the picture. He-added that he would be leaving the picture with the Board members so they will have a chance to look at this image and imagine how different it would be if the mountains were scarred with uncontrolled devglopment. Mr. Robert Hogue stated that each year federal, state and local govern- ments take some of the people's rights and freedoms away. ~e mentioned that hunting rights are under attack in Albemarle County, and the same goes for logging nationwide. He said each year government officials propose new regulations that would make equipment and supplies more expensive for owners of farms and ranches. He stated that some regulations will take land out cf the operation, and if a profit is nat made, the farm will be sold. He next referred to tourism where some people want to save all the trees for the tourism and restaurant industry. He remarked that willow trees on the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive are being damaged by pollution from cars, but he does not hear the tourism industry calling for the'closure of the Parkway or Drive. He then mentioned property values and he pointed out that if this ordinance passes, the owners of nice homes already in ~he mountains will make a ~ice profit if they choose to sell. He stated that if the other landowners' June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 42) 000365 rights are taken away, they should be compensated. He noted that the popula- tion is increasing worldwide, in the United States, as well as Albemarle County. He asked where the County officials plan for the population to live, and he wondered if they would propose a regulation that every couple should have one child, or maybe a regulation allowing no one to move into Albemarle. Ne mentioned polls, and he said the one he hears'the most about is for less government. There are enough regu/lations for housing now, end he asked the Supervisors to vote no for the Mountain Protection Ordinance. Mr. Clifton McCleskey stated that he and his wife farm a 174 acre place on the south end of Carter's Mountain, and ten to 15 acres of this proper~y are within the Mountain Overlay District. He remarked that he has no plans to develop any part of th~s farm, end he hopes they can continue farming for another 25 years. However, he thinks this proposed ordinm/lce will affect the value of his property, as well as other property owners. He said it seems to him the existing policy in Albemarle County demonstrates this fact. He explained that the agricultural value of land, which is presumably all that would be allowed under this proposal for most acreages, zs consistently lower than the appraised value which suggests agricultural value is not as great as market value. He also mentioned his main concern as to the overall unfairness of the ordinance, as well as the shakiness of the case being nde for it. He said in spite of the language about erosion, water quality and public safety, it is very clear that what drives this is an ecstatic concern relating to a kind of beauty. He stated that it is a very narrow end parochial type of beauty, because it is the beauty that is associated with undeveloped end unused mountain views. He added that h~ likes this, too, but he also thinks there are other beauties which need to be of concern. He said a well tended vinelrard, cottage, barn, or hayfield are all objects of beauty as well. He pointed out that to think all that lends beauty =o Albemarle County is the mountains is to miss the contribution that mankind can make. He reca!led the first time he saw the Shenandoah Valley where his biggest impression was not the mountains, but the valley itself, and much of it is manmade. He said he thinks the citizens are being offered a bill of goods, and they should resist them. He mentioned that in addition to farming, he has taught courses in American Politics as a faculty member at the University of Virgil-ia for the last 25 years. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. McClesky that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. A. C. (Corky) Shackelford, Jr. informed Board members that he has a farm-of approximately 370 acres in the Rivanna District, and he is present to express his skepticism about some of the basis on which a decision is being made' relative tO t_he Mountain Protection Ordinance. He then referred to the map on the wall where he said some of his land is marked in red. He noted that his land is no higher than the major part of Route 20 between Charlottes- ville and the Orange County line and has no more slope than the floor of this room. He said it is marked in red on the map as a 25 percent slope, but he does not know how these designations are made. He stated that his main concern, though, is that many people have land as their only asset for retirement s_nd even for subsistence. He added that there is no question value is taken away from them, if they can't develop this lend. He commented that his home is in the shadow of Peter's Mountain and the big AT&T relay station on top cf it, which is probably as large and unattractive as anything that could be built here in the County on a mountaintop. He noted that he loves the mountains, end didn't really favor this building, but unlike a former speaker, he can't consider these mountains that he really loves as part of his home as long as he does not own them end somebody else pays the-taxes on them. He said he wishes the Supervisors and others who have supported this ordinance would feel the same way. He pointed out that Peter's Mountain has had this station for a long time, and the mountain hasn't come down, the streams haven't silted up, and he is still drinking water from a spring coming from the mountain. He emphasized that he is in good health for a man who is 68 years old.' He recalled that a number of speeches in favor of this ordinance have seemed to assume that if houses are not built on the mountains they won't be. built anyway. He said it is a sure thing if the houses are not built on the mountains, they will be built on good farmland o~ the values which he thilnks are just as attractive. He asked the Board members, if they are going to take rights away from some people, to pay for them. He mentioned Mr. Davis' statement that the County is not obligated to pay for them, which he said does not encourage him to support this ordinance. , Mr. Wally Parks remarked that through all the rhetoric and discussion, he believes this raatter boils down to one primary issue, which is the determi- nation of whether or not it is fair =o discriminate against one kind of (Page 43) landowner for the soul benefit of all other landowners. He asked if it is fair to take from one class of property owners by giving them a separate set of rules to abide by with regard to how they can use property which they own. The County staff says nobody loses with this proposal, but he asked the Supervisors if they really believe it, or do they believe because they personally are not losing on this issue, that nobody loses. He added that when government uses discrimination to 9et its way, he does not see how anybody can win. He referred to ads calling the mountains, "our mountains." He stated that he does not think his mountain is the commun/ty's anymore than people would think their yards would be the community's. He said if people in the County wish to control the mountain property, then they should purchase it. He mentioned the comment that land is not devalued by this ordinance, but he said when he loses %he freedom to use his land as he previously could, he has suffered a loss. He said when he loses potential buyers on a resale market, he has suffered a loss. He referred to the 1970s when VEPCO, .which is now Virginia Power, ran a high voltage transmission line through his property on the Southwest Mountains. He stated that at that time they paid the affected land owners approximately $I,000 an acre. He noted that they did not purchase the land, but they were compensating the landowners for the loss of the use and the 'devaluation of the land. The landowners were not allowed to build on the 150 foot wide path, and Virginia Power paid money because t_hey t6ok this land. He stated that now the County wants to take land supposedly for the benefit of the community a= his expense and tell him nobody loses. He said if the Supervisors honestly feel that these new burdensome reglzlations are so needed and so fair then why no= apply them to all properties in the County and share the wealth and joy with everybody who owns la~d. He stated that he thixxks it is wrong when government discriminates against one class of property owner and offers nothing in return. Mr. Stsven Walton stated that he and his family own moLuitain property in the white Hall District. He noted that he has heard the County Attorney say technically this is not a taking of property, but he asked the Supervisors what they feel in their hearts. He said every property owner of the mountain lands has come forward tonight and expressed their loss. He added t. hat they have also heard from people who live probably on a one acre lot in a subdivi- sion say it won't affect them at a!l. He agreed that it won't. He said it just affects the people who own the land, amd he reminded the Supervisors that they have been elected to do a job for everyone in the community. They have fiduciary responsibility to do that for these people, too, because riley are taxpayers and they are the Supervisors' bosses. These are the people WhO. own the land that will be affected. He mentioned that a lot of people, such as his family me, ers, have owned land in this County for generations. He said whether it has been developed or not, if the landowner still owns it, it is considered money in the b~lk. He went on to say whether or not the landowners choose to develop it in their generation or pass it on to their children so their children can develop it, or steward it and pass it on to the next generation is up to the individual property owner. He urged the Supervisors to vone against the Mountain Overlay District regulation. He believes government is like good medicine. A little bit goes a long way. Mr. Ed Scharer, of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, commented tl~at most of what he wante~ to say has already been said. He added that this is a taking without compensation, and as such will be' challenged. He said people will be given no other choice. He then pointed out to all the people who called the areas, "our viewsheds" and "our mountains" that they a~e not their mOUl%:ains unless their name is on the tax bill. Ms. Phyllis Shelton informed the Supervisors tb~t her admiration for nhem has to do with her admiration for their stamina. The question raised as to why more people have not come out to the virtually intermin~%ble delibera- tions of the Planning Commission has to do with the fact that until this issue came up, they didn't perceive a problem. The point has been made that the problem the Supervisors are trying to legislate against is more potential it is actual, and this is a sweeping and fairly broad type of issue. She reminded the Supervisors that Albemarle County has Zoning Ordinances. She said if someone is presenting a subdivisi6n to go on top of a mountain, then the County should have administrators who can point out the problems instead of n~dcing a sweeping Ordinance to cover much more than it needs to do. She remarked t_hat there is a lack of common sense in this approach, and she thinks the point has already been well made that this is an extension of government in mn intrusive way, and it is something to which a lot of people are opposed. She noted that the tourism industry has been loud in its support of this issue. She sai~ she jusu cares back from a trip to Europe, and it is interest- lng that universally Switzerland, Southern France and Italy have chosen to build on the tops of mountains because that is the least usable land. The presumption that the only value of the mountaintops is for them to be pristine and have nothing on them is something that is ill taken. She noted that people who own property, as she and her family do, are very concerned with maintaining its beauty. She said she enjoys it every day, and to force on the stewards of the land regulations that inhibit their maintaining and caring for the property, is going to potentially do as much d~mage to the scenic beauty of the County'as otherwise. She urged the Board of Supervisors to oppose this ordinance. She said she thinks a narrower structure would accomplish a damage that could be done by some development, but the sweeping proposal will cause more harm than it will rectify the fear of this potential issue. Mr. Traynor Biasiolli noted that his family owns 120 acres straddling County Line Mountain, some of which lies in the Mountain Overlay District. He recalled that one of the opponents of this proposed Mountain Protection Plan recently stated that ownership implies the right to build, maintain, sell or even destroy that which is owned. He agrees. However, by the same token, people do not truly own the land in this sense, and they cannot own the land. He said rather they 'are here as stewards of the land, axld they b~ve as much right to abuse it as they do another person. He pointed out that this ordinance does not take properuy rights, but it merely enforces property responsibility, which is a responsibility to both human and biotic communi- ties. The mountains of Albemarle County are rare and beautiful places because they have not been crowded by subdivisions and development. He asked that the Supervisors approve the Mountain Protection Ordinance with a few amendments. First, he asked that the 2t acre minimum lot size be approved as in the original version. The two acre minimum lot size as proposed would result in excessive forest fragmentation. Secondly, he asked that the exemption for large scale agricultural facilities be eliminated. He reported that one of his neighbor~ on County Line Mountain has literally stripped away a large portion of the mountain to put in a 700 foot long industrial turkey barn. The noise, odor and environmental degradation that this facility creates impacts the area much more than a mountaintop development. Mr. N°rma/% Bell, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycling Association, stated that this Association is committed to sound planning, protection of the envlronment and a h/gh quality of life in Charlot6esvitle andAlbemarle. The work done'by the Mountain Protection Committee and the Planning Department is consistent with the Association's goals. He remarked that the three recommendations of the Committee, an ordinance delineating a Mountain Overlay District, a Lighting Ordinance and additional plazlning tools are each important, and his Associatio~ supports them. He said critics of the proposed ordinance have correctly pointed out that most of the damaging development in the rural areas does not occur in the mountains. He stated 6hat while this does not mean separate protection of the moLLntains is unneces- sary, it indicates a need for a comprehensive approach. He said one other tool the County officials have wisely looked into is the purchase of develop- mant rights, and there.has never been a better time for this. He remarked that the New York Times wrote last week about the exuraordinaryvolume of bond issues and other revenue raising devices that appeared on state and local ballots in 1996 and last year. He commented that nearly three out of four of more than 150 environmental finance measures won approval even though they typically called for a small property or sales tax.- He said altogether these measures will eventually raise more than $4,000,000,000 for conservation projects. He stated that combined with the ordinance, along with the program educating property owners about the financial advantages of conservation eesemenus, a purchase of development program would result in strong protection for the mountains and other ecologically important rural areas. He also referred to something he said was overlooked at the plarn%ing Commission public hearing. He noted that the ordinance does not apply 0nly to private land, because included in the Overlay District is Mount Jefferson, also known as Observatory Hill, which is part of the University of Virginia. He stated t-hat his Association members believe the University, as an institution devoted to the common ~ood, should preserve Mount Jefferson forever for its natural and recreational values, and they hope the ordinance will lead in that direction. He concluded his remarks by saying that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicy- cling Association fully supports the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance as part of a comprehensive approach involving education, financial incentives and a reasonable amount of regulation. The Association would be pleased to see a moratorium placed on new subdivision in the moun:ains while the details of the ordinance are worked ou~ and work continues on the rural area section of the Comprehensive Plan. 000368 Jttne 10, !998 (Regular ~ight Meeting) (Page MS. Mary Ford voiced her opposition to the Mountain Protection Plan. She stated t/~at she is a native of A~bemarle County, she has lived here her entire life, she is a landowner, and her property is affected by this ordi- nance. She said she appreciates the Supervisors' patience in listening to the public tonight, and she hopes they are really listening to the mountain owners and how they feel. She added that she does not know how m~ny people on the Committee actually own mountain land and are affected by this ordinance, but she hopes the Board will consider the owners' feelings and what they want. She noted that they have been protecting their .!and for years, they are proud of it, they continue to take care of it and have every intention of doing so. She said she hopes the Board of Supervisors will not approve this proposal. Mr. Harold Spain~our informed the Board that he owns approximately !5 acres that will be in the Mountain Overlay District, and he is opposed to the proposal. He asked how many of the Supervisors have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and he said he was encouraged by the three responses from the Supervisors. He commented, though, it seen~ strange for a government sworn to protect individual freedoms and private property rights, that there is somebody'who wants to take people's rights away a little bit at a time. He stated that landowners are told not to worry, because their properties are not worth anything, so they don't have to be paid for them. He next asked why the County Officials want this right, and he said they want it for the economic developmen~ of the County. He wondered if properties are not worth anything individually, why are they suddenly worth a 10t once the County officials have those rights. Mr. Keith Ford noted that he is opposed to this plan because it has hurt his feelings. He said it has really made him angry because he does not know where all of the people who drew up this plan were when the landowners were fighting the Gypsy Moth. He added that he thin]cs Albemarle County needs a wake up call. He said somebody needs ~o ge~ a plan for the landowner, not to take his land away, but to help him. He pointed out that Albemarle County only has two gamewardens, and it is days before property owners can ge~ their help. He remarked that they are good game wardens, and they do a good job, but they are understaffed. He asked who is going to take up for the land- owner, and when will he get some representation. He said landowners know they don't want their rights taken away so their grandchildren can't have a piece of land. He stated that he doesn't want his grandchildren in a trailer park or town house, because he doesn't thir~k this would be right if he owns 237 acres of Albemarle County land. He reiterated that somebody has to get a plan 'for the landowner and somebody has got to help him. He asked if the CoUnty citizens would have been better off if the money had been used for them instead of spending it On this plan. He wondered if the lady wou!d have been murdered at Stony Point last year, or if Keith Wagner's horse's eyes would have been shot out. He asked if Mark Freed's miniature ponies would have been run down'by a pack of deer dogs, and when they broke their front legs, they had to be killed and buried. He wondered if Hunter Lewis' gates would have been torn down byATVs if this money hadbeen utilized ~o protect the land- owner. He inquired if the money had been given to Sheriff Hawkins to increase his security and to hire more deputies, wo~ld there have been eight break-ins from White Hall to Nortonsville. He noted that his uncle lost his antique furniture, and his tenant was ~obbed.~ He inquired if all of thisshould have been taken into consideration instead of taking the rights of the landowner away. He said he thinks the money could have been utilized a lot better than that. He stated that it has been seen how rights in other cou/ltries have been taken away, and taking a man's rights isn't near as bad as it is when he tries to gain them back. He mentioned cities being burned, ~nd he asked if anybody was mad at these people for taking back their rights. He said he was not, because they were down as low as they could get, and they had to go up. Mr. Hick Walden stated ttLat there is no question everybody at this meeting is interested in protectin~ and preserving the mountains, and there should be no question that the property rights and property values of the people who own these mountains should also be protected and preserved. The ordinance, when it eventually passes, should do both. He added that because of the nature of the road and site requirements of ~he ordinance and the extreme difficulty and expense involved in obtaining a special use permit req~zired by ~b_e oral/hence as it =ow stands, many mountain landowners' building rights wou~d not be able to be used because t_he approved building sites would not be able t~ he reached by a legal road. To protect people from this loss of use and value, which is not obvious when the ordinance is read, and concurrently protect the mountains, he wou!d p:opose the ordinance. He noted that he has sent copies of these changes to the Board june 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 46) 000~69 members. First, there would be no changes to erosioncontrol measures which protect the mountains from any erosion effect. He added that homes should be built on level wooded lots, and the only other alternative is a steeper slope. He stated that no healthy trees should be cut within 20 feet of building sites or roadways. He said homes should be no taller than one and one-~a!f stories, and they should be done in natural materials and colors, although he is unsure if this can be re~u!ated. He commented that road embankment standards should be changed to allow up to one to one slopes and up to 20 percent grades depending on soil conditions. He added that this change would result in less soil disturbance and loss of trees and vegetation and, therefore, less erosion and ground degradation. He said exist/rig stabilized roads should be permitted for use as driveways in lieu of construction of entirely new roads which will illogically result in~nnecessary soil disturbance and subsequent erosion. He stated that clustering in division rights should be allowed in lower building areas, with these road construction requirements and with minimized visual impact. He said landowners should be allowed =o s&!! d/vision rights uo landowners outside the Mountain Overlay District, and he emphasized that those rights are made unusable by the ordinance. He said in family division situations where the parcel 'inquest needs to be kept for a minimum of eight years, all driveway requirements should he suspended and the full use of all divisions shall nou be denied because of any constraints imposed by the ordinance. He mentioned in forested areas sitting on extreme mountain ridge tops, homes may be constructed on any 30 square foot building site with the requirements of his first four suggestions. This will allow new homes to be built on less steep land resulting in less erosion and unchanged visual impact. These changes will both protect the mountains and the property rights and values of the citizens who own these mountains. He asked the Supervisors to take the time =o consider these suggestions for the good of the mountains and those who own them, and to listen to the voices of the landowners who are here tonight who are adversely affected by this ordinaice~ He also asked that they take these landowners' sincere concerns to heart. Mr. Gerry Fisher stated that his family owns 900 acres of land around the Village of Hearde Mountain and Massey's Mountain. He said his family has owned it for 45 years and through three generations, and they have not eve~ built a dog house on this property. He pointed out that he and his family members are not in the developmenu business but, instead, they grow trees. He added that like his good neighbor, Jean Ko!b, he would like a chance to build a house somewhere on this mountain at some time. He would also like for his children, grandchildrenr nieces and nephews, who own other ~ieces 6f the property, to be able to do the same. He said his family members are much more affected by the ridge area limitations than he ms, s6 he is-not speaking for his family or against the ridge area. He stated, though, that he would have a political problem with his family, if he supported the ridge area .regulations. He then noted that the embankments issue ms the part he is most concerned with now. He went on to say, because so much of the land he owns is steep, he f~ars the way the embankment lan~age is written would prevent him from even being able =o build a driveway across the land withou= spending a great deal of money on engineering surveys and perhaps ending up disturbing a great deal more ground than probably needs to be done. .He commented that the proposed regulation regarding the two to one slopes, one and one-half to one slopes or the provision for extenuating circumstances, which defines s~ch things as rock and other existing physical site features, needs to be changed. He remarked that it needs to allow for people to build retaining walls, uo put in rip-rap banks and other kinds of things other than existing physical site features which would limit the amount of soil that has to be moved in order to build a driveway. This is too restrictive, and he thinks it will create a lot more erosion than anything else here. Mr. Larry De Neveu indicated that he and his family own land in the White Hall District~ and almost all of the 400 acres is covered by this proposed ordinance. He said if this ordinance is passed, he does not see County officials as confiscating his land, because he thinks he would know if this is being done. He stated that he looks at it as a zoning matter, and the officials are doing what they have been elected to do. He went on to say he does no~ thir~k the police protection issue is oppressive, and he does not think public educauion is brainwashing. He commented that he does not think this is a taking of his land, and if he did, he would object. He noted that this process has been going on for approximately three years, and everyone has had a reasonable chance to voice their opinions. He said he thinks the Supervisors have communicated the issues very well to most of the people, and he asked the Supervisors to vote unanimously for the ordinance in its original form. June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 47) 0O0370 Mr. Rick Beyer, of the Liberty Land Company, which is the developer of Ashcroft, stated that it looks as though there has been a lot of progress made on this ordinance. He said he believes a process is being developed that is bringing this issue more to the point where everybody is having to compromise a little bit, and he thinks the decision to defer was very good. He commented that his reading of the ordinance, with the amendments, indicates that property rights are not being taken away. They will possibly be more diffi- cult to get to, and he doesn't really think this can be supported in some cases~ He stated that if the ridge area is the best place to build, then it is the best place, and it shouldn't take a special use permit to get there. This is a complex zssue and it took him a while to digest the changes raade during the last coupl~of days. He pointed out that he does not thirik people realize they are going to be able to use their division rights, and he does not think most people realizethe difference between the requirements for a driveway and the requirements for a private road. He commented that he does not believe these things can be ironed out in ten days or by next Wednesday. There is still more time needed, if an ordinance is developed that makes sense. He added that he thinks the special use permit should be taken away, and if the best place for a house is at the top of the hill, he does not think the special use permit should be held as something that might or might not be granted. As far as Ashcroft is concerned, he said he would like to have something specified for all Planned Unit Developments, if they are planned and work has already taken place in them. He suggested that the ordinance should specifically cover them and not leave him wondr//lg what the s:atns of these places 'will be when this ordinance is approved. Mr. Scott Peyton, a lifelong resident of Albemarle County, mentioned that throughout his life he has spent time in, through and around the moun- tains of Albemarle County, and much of this has been on private land. He said he has friends, neighbors, and family who own property which will be affected by this ordinance, and he referred to the responsible stewardship practices that many, if not most, of the mountain owners currently utilize on their land. However, he noted that he does not see anything in this ordinance to discourage these same property owners from continuing to practice good stewardship, if this ordine-nce is approved. He said he fears for the moun- tains, and he thinks the ordinance would afford some measure of protection against those who would seek to exploit the mountain resources in Albemarle County. He encouraged the Supervisors to support and pass this ordinance. Mr. Ronnie Morris noted that approximately 60 people have spoken, at his last count, and there were 38 adamantly against this ordinance and 22 for it. He said he is here for the third time to defend his rights as a mountain property owner and a lifelong ~.lbemarle County resident, as well as at least four generations of people who have lived in Albemarle County's mountain region. He said he lives in the White Hall District, and seldom do people in this district object to the Mountaintop Ordinance as it is written. He stated that he recently attended and spoke at the Planning Commission meeting which constituted approximately six to seven hours. He pointed out that an over- whelmingmajority of those who spoke were against this ordinance, yet the Co~ission voted six to nothing in its fair. He said he has confidence that this Board's leadership, with £ts desire uo serve the people, will not lead to a similar outcome. He commented that the Mountaintop Ordinance is not a mechanism =o reduce erosion, provide safety, or improve water quality, etc., because it is strictly a matter of scenic importance. He noted that a majority of the water problems don't come from mountain development, but instead, subdivisions, golf courses and fertilizer on lawns certairily affect water quality. These things don't affect his water because he lives in the mountains, but they probably affect the Supervisors' water because of where they live. He added that he does not want to see commercial development or subdivisions on the mountains, but he feels the landowners should have a right to build on the mountains in a manner that is aesthetically acceptable with certain restrictions on clearing and high visibility construction. -He asked - the Supervisors to trust the judgment of the ~untain property owners, because they have been good stewards of the land for generations. He suggested if a subdivision owner or the owners of other non-m~untain property want a mountain for a backdrop, then let them purchase it. He asked the Supervisors to vote no to non-mountain property owners who w-~_nt to take away the mountain owners' rights in order to serve themselves. F~. Page Gi!!iam said she is a me~oer of the Mountain Protection Cor~nittee and an owner~ with her family, of mo%u~tain l~nd. She noted that she is speaking tonight for herself and not for the Mountain Protection Co~uittee, J%me 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 48) 000371 .as a whole. She stated that she has been surprised recently to hear comments which have assumed the Mountain Protection Committee either invited or even cha!lenged landowners to participate in the proceedings, but nobody responded. She added that this is no~ the case. She reported that her Committee never brought landowners into the meetings in a systematic way. The process was as inclusive and fair as it could be within the limitations of the mandate, but the Committee was neither authorized nor charged to hold public hearings. The me=tings, while technically open, were not wide!ypublicized. However, on isolated occasions Committee members were contacted by interested property owners, and some of these people came to the meetings, including Mr. Gerry Fisher, who just spoke. She stressed that, with all respect to those in- volved, the Committee's recommendations did not have thebenefit of extensive public comment. She ~aid she has. always anticipated that property owners would have an opportunity to study this ordinance fully in its final form, and she thinks the pubic deserves to have its comments considered in a meaningful way under the auspices of this Board. She commented that until this happens, the process of turning the proposal into law is incomplete. She next asked that the Supervisors send this proposal back' for further study over a period of not less than 90 days. She suggested a task force be appointed to study at least the following fresh and constructive ideas that the Mountain Protection Committee did not consider or incorporate in its recommendations. First, she mentioned that there needs to be a proposal to redefine ridge area to take into account the topography of flattop mountains. Secondly, she suggested a proposal to modify the plans and requirements regarding private roads. Next, she said issues of valuation need to be considered and lastly, consideration needs to be given to whether or not the special use permit is an appropriate mechanism for deciding if a particular building site is or is not in line with the purposes of the plan. She said many owners are unclear as to the criteria they would have to meet in order to rece/ve a variance. She stated that she understands some are worried about an avalanche of under the wire applications mountain development, if this proposal is. not passed tonight or even next week. She added that she does not know how to assess this risk, but there are serious issues still to be addressed. She .emphasized that if the passage of a complex far-reaching measure is rushed, when there are still well reasoned and substantive su~estions being offered that have not been heard before, the Supervisors run the risk of passing a seriously flawed ordinance. However, mountain legislation coming from the collaborative effort that she is urginig will be stronger and much more likely to withstand attack. Ms. Kathy Bodkin told the Supervisors that she and her family own and live on 31 acres at the top of the mountain on the section of Route 600 between Cismont and Stony Point which is within the Southwest Mountain range. She said she favors the general intent of the ordinance to protect the beauty of Albemarle County, but she is opposed to some of the specific regulations and particularly to the process. She then referred to Page Gilliam's comments and indicated her support. Ms. Bodkin stated that the Board does not have the necessary information to make these far-reaching decisions and the process by which this. has all occurred is flawed. She said good decisions require facts and dialogue, and she made three suggestions. First, she asked the Board to direct the County staff to make a complete fiscal impact study of the proposed regulations with re~ard to each and every properuy owner to inform each and every property owner individually in writing how these provisions will affect their particular property and to report back to this Board on the precise doltar figure these changes wiI1 cost each landowner separately and in total. She commented that she believes the purpose of these'regulations has been to get to the large developer. Yet, she thinks some of the small property owners are being hurt, such as herself. She said, for example, her property has been on the market for approximately six m~nths, and she has had offers withdrawn within the last 60 days because of this situation. She stated that it will cost her between $30,000 ~nd $60,000. She mentioned that she can give the volunteer assessor,, who has said there will be no impact, an example of precise impact besides having at least three development rights on her property taken away. She Said since all of her property is in the ridge area, and there is one house on the property, according to Staff it is very much up for debate whether she could build at all on any other place on the property, as well as any future owner. This may have taken away her right to move at all. Secondly, she sug~jested that the Supervisor~ should also consider appropriate compensation to all landowners who are in the Mountain Overlay District. This is not selfish, it is only fair. She added that her last recommenda=ion is t. hat this Board needs to realize how this matter has not been fairly publicized to everyone in the County. She noted that this topic is not on the web site page, and neither are the minutes. The last mention of this topic was /n September, 1996 in the FYI report, so she as a citizen J=e ~0, ~aa8 (~e~lar Night Meeting~ 000~72 (Page 49} trying to stay informed, could not have found this information. She suggested that the Supervisors need to require all committees and commissions to put their minutes on their web site page. She stated also that they should report to the Supervisors after their meetings so the information can go into the Supervisors' minutes of record, and the citizens can access it. This would help in the future with some of the problems. She added that she hopes all landowners will be involved in the Board's discussions in the future. Mr. Dick Brandt told'the Supervisors he has great respect for the tasks in front of them. He said he threw away his notes and thoughts that he was going to try to say in three minutes a long time ago, and he is uncertain as to what he should say now. He added that this tells him he is in tune with - the complexity of the =reation of this ordinance, and he thinks it is impor- tant that the Supervisors continue with it. He commented that he is in favor of the idea of the ordinance, although there are technical problems needing attention. He stated that he has been convinced, since he came to this area 30 years ago, that the mountains will look like little hills instead of mountains if somethin~ is not done. He said he has seen development creep half way up Buck's Elbow Mountain. He noted that he has great ~ratitude for the long time homeowners of the mountain land, and he is very grateful for their stewardship, but ~hat is not what worries him. He said growth and development plans are here, and he thinks the County will be ruined if something is not done in line with the ordinance this Board is currently addressing. He wished the Supervisors lots of luck, and he asked that they continue in pursuit with the final details of the ordinance to as many people's satisfaction as possible. Ms. Barbara Payne stated that she owns 100 acres of land in the White Hall District, and she is in favor of the Mountain Protection Ordin~-~ce. She noted that her remarks were prompted by a letter to the Daily Progress recently about this ordinance. The letter stated that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and this ordinance was passed, he wouldn't be allowed to build Monticello. She added that she thought, as she so often had before, that if development happe~in~ today were szmilar to Monticello an ordinance would not have to be created. She said everybody might not be arguing about it here tonight, because Monticello blends into its surroundings, and it is in harmony with the environment. She pointed out that driving on 1-64 a person would never know Monticello was there in the summer and Dven in winter, it is difficult to pick it out from the forest. She said Jefferson built the house of d~rk bri~k and left a belt of trees around the perimeter of the ridge top, and the contour of the mountain was not changed. She remarked that in answer to a question asked earlier tonight, she has looked around, and she finds t_hat development today contrasts sharply with Monticello. She emphasized that one needs only to look at the south part of the Southwest Mountains to see this happe~ling. She stated that she is in sympathy with the individual property owner who is a good steward of r_he land but, unfortunately, there are many who have and will continue to degrade and destroy the beauty of this County. Thus, she.feels a need for this ordinance. Mr. Jack Marshall informed the Board members that he and his wife own 100 acres on Fox Mountain,_which fall within the PrOPosed M~untain Overlay District, and he strongly urged the Board to adopt this ordinance. He said in addition to the tremendous public benefits over time, there are other reasons. First, he thinks the cost to the landowners has been overs=ated. The economic cost is substantially less than the alarmists' claims, except possibly from those speculators who willingly gambled. He believes he 'and most other families who own mountain land would lose nothing or could creatively move parcel borders and building sites to lose very little. He said if adjustments don't work satisfactorily, there is a way to seek special permits. He stated that costs to his personal freedom have also been 9-~eatty exaggerated. He said moLxntain landowners already accept the prmnclple that they canzlOt do whatever they want on their land, even though they own it and pay taxes on it. He added that they cannot hunt or burn fires Whenever they wa/it or throw anything in the streams on their land, and they can't build a factory or unlimited residential developments. He went on to say the mountain landowners a~reed to these limitations on their personal freedom because they understand that their parcels of land are not islands isolated from everything but integrated parts of the community. They may have the right to sell the land, but in the meantime, they have responsibilities to the lar~er community. Secondly, he believes there is nothin~ sacrosanct about the number of develop- ment rights on the land when he bought it. He stated that land use decisions have been made by elected people from his con, trinity using the perspective available at the time, as well as their best judgment. He said it wasn't (Page 50) divine revelation that his ~and should have nine developmenu rights. He stated that if a subsequent Board increases the value of the land by rezoning and doubling the development rights, he would not feel obliged to write a check to local government representing t/le added new value to his property. He said if the new community perspective about the responsible use of land leads elected leaders to a revised judgment about his land, and it is a w~se judgment in the best interest of the whole community but one which may reduce his development rights, he would feel hypocritical if he demanded to be compensated. Finally, an expanding population will increasingly exert new demands on mountaintop land. This is the essence, because as a community, courage and vision is displayed by anticipating the destructive znfluence not of a single Monticello, but of the cumulative effect of hundreds or even thousands of Monticell~s. He added that r_his ordinance creates a natural tension which can be felt in the auditorium Tonight, and it is a tension between t3~e individual good and e public good. He stated that, on balance, he thinks the ordinance is clearly weighted on the side of the long term interest of the whole community. Mr. Marshall announced that Ms. Sara Lee Barnes had to leave the meeting, and he asked Mr. Martin =o read the letter she had left for the Board. Mr. Martin said Ms. Barnes' letter indicates that basically Ms. Barnes is a long time resident and owner of mountain land, and she supports the ordinance. Mr. Michael T. Boggs remarked that he has been a mountain resident of Albemarle County for the past 25 years,and he is President of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Inc. He informed the Board members that his 32 years of experi- ence in designing and building roads and development sites includes 24 years of road construction'and site development in mostly mountainous terrain au Wintergreen and Massanutten resorts, as well as the development and consuruc- tion of Rosemont, where only nine percent or seven of the seventy-seven development rights available to create new lots were used. This is the second most counterproductive ordinance ever proposed in Albemarle County. He recalled that the first was the proposal involving the 21 acre parcels that he believes have served to fragment much of Albemarle County's agricultural and forestal land, and has unnecessarily removed thousands of acres from produc- tion. This proposed MOD ordinance is ineffective in accomplishing the goals of 90 percent of its proposals, and it e!i~/nates the use of many development rights on the higher and usually flatter elevationswhich 'causes tremendous los~ of property value. The ordinance does nothing to control the siting, the amount of clearing, the size or the color and, in other words, the visibility of the many v/able building sites will remain. He said it serves To create much more land disturbance and visibility of the roads and houses that will be pushed down 100 feet from the mountaintops onto the mountainsides where there is no way to hide either. These areas have drainage problems, and the septic s~tems are much more likely to leak to the surface. He commented that plant s_nd wildlife habitat are much more abundant. These areas fall within, or at the beginning, of the most critical slopes, and generally the roads and driveways serving lots in these areas of the ~untainsides will cause far better impact on critical slopes.and aesthetics. He called attention uo the strategies outlined on Page One of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, as well as the desi~n standards on Page Seven. He noted that the strategies and 95 percent of the design standards are excellent measures to protect moun- tains. He asked why aren't these strategies and standards a simple theme of the proposed ordinance, rather than an ineffective and counterproductive stab au only the first strategy listed. He said somewhere along the line the original goal to protect the mountains became derailed. He thinks the Board needs to take a hard look at the proposal, and sit down with some landowners, developers, engineers and contractors who have practical experience in mountainland ownership, stewardship, and construction on this type of terrain. True workshops need to be conduc=ed unlike the orchestrated affair which happened last Wednesday. He strongly urged the Board members to do this. Mr. Peter Hallock commented that most of what he wanted to say has already been said, but he honestly feels that the downzoning of 1980 increased his family farm's value more th~ a bunch of two acre lots in Keswick. He said he thinks ilte real estate agents will agree with him. He stated that when ~n easement is given, it is an individual parcel. He noted that the Supervisors are making a whole protected area so, therefore, the land is treated differently in value. He said he will discuss with the Board members 0003'74' June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 51) the issue involving the difference in value at a later time, but he wanted them to know he is in favor of the ordinance. Ms. Linda Shank annoUnced that she owns property in a ridge area. She thanked the Supervisors and expressed her respect to each of them for the responsibility they b~ve accepted as elected officials. She said she recog- nizes the challenge they face as they carefully weigh the pros and cons in making this decision. She added that she has watched the Supervisors and she sees them actively listening, and she thinks this is p=obably some of the most difficult listeningshe can imagine. She said she is truly moved by the democratic process here in which everybody can enc~ress their opinions. However, she went on to say she has been trying to make sense out of this ordinance, but she hasa't been able to do so, and she would have to vote no tonight. As a nurse, Ms. Shank said she supports many aspects of environmen- tal protection, but she opposes this.ordinance because she sees it as taking without giv//~g and taking without compensating. She stated that she truly finds it remarkable that the staff and elected officials of her County have chosen this environmental issu~ to focus on when she b~!ieves there are other conditions presenting a widespread growing which is very real and very destructive in its effect. She then proposed a new ordinance to Albemarle County vehicle owners that since there are too many cars in Albemarle County which are clogging the roads, polluting the environment and destroying the beauty of the scenic areas, threatening the general public safety and burden- ing the taxpayer's services. She said any family with more than one vehicle will be required to give up all but one car or truck, and the family wil! not be compensated for the vehicle or vehicles that the County will take, as they will still have one car or one truck for transportation. She added that the families with extra vehicles should be happy to give them up for the greaner good of the community. She said she would also include a special use permit for an extra truck which may be granted at the sole whim of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supe~isors'if a person can prove that over 90 percent of his or her income is derived from farming. Mr. William Dunwoody, an Albemarle County resident living nea~ Barboursvil!e, spoke in support of controlled growth in County development. However, he said he believes people's deeded rights in division and develop- ment should not be randomly seized and eliminated. This is a constitutional issue, as well as a moral one. He went on to say if the ordinance is to be considered as it was originally, it should be scrapped. He said, though, if it is passed, it shouid be with the proposed changes from the Planning Commission which would allow him, as a 100 percent disabled veteran, as well as his retired mother, to live on his 20 acres so they can take care of each other on their two division lots. He suggested that more time be taken for' Consideration of all of these possible Sorts of distinct problems that seem to be enlarging. He said Albemarle County officials are in a un=que posztlon because there is unparalleled explosive population growth. He noted that it is inevitable, it is happening now, and that is why everybody is a= this meeting. He stated that itcannot be wished away, and it cannot be ignored, so he suggested addressing it in a forthright manner. The 700 foot elevation limit should be eliminated, because it is ridiculous, and at best it is a stopgap method for dealing with an arbitrary portion of the problem. He said it is ineffectual and a crumbling dyke. He noted that the City is having a reversion issue, and it is still unclear if Albemarle County wants to be a town or city. He asked how a serious decision can be made when there is an unknown future without allowing for change as a constant. He said a Rural Overlay District could perhaps be adopted which w~uld afford the entire county protection from uncontrolleddevelopment, and not just mountain owners. He thinks a plan should be adopted taking new ideas ~uch as william Sherman's cohousing projects, who is a visionary new architect in Charlottesville. He said County officials should be prepared to evaluate these approaches =o development at whatever altitude and wherever the County may develop, so there can be 9-teen healthy areas for people to live. He stated that de--ged land should be reclaimed with private and government funding and by using manpower of boy scouts, girl scouts and 4-H members. This sort of thing was done whem he was a child, and areas were made prettier with things such as trees and vegetables being planted. He stated that people stand in llne to sign up for garden plots in a state park in Wilmington Delaware. He added that people who are hung-~y in the County can he fed, ~nd trees can be planted for commercial uses, which will be more money for the County. He said growth can be dealt with realistically and instead of being run over by it, Albemarle.County can be a national example of how it can be managed. He said perhaps Mr. Sherman and a few of =he County landowners coui~ get together to see what develops. tune lO. 199~ I~e~l~= ~ight ~esting) 00037S (Page 52) Mr. Wendell Wood co~ented that he has been comin~ to meetings before Albemarle County Boards of Supervisors for over 30 years, but the one thing disturbing him about this ordinance is the rush to judgment. He stated that after all of these comments, the Supervisors must have some doubt about what they are doing. Be said he thinks theSupervisors should b~ very concerned about making a decision they can back up after the diversity of opinions tonight from attorneys and appraisers, as well as the limited input. He emphasized that he hopes they will not make a decision on this ordinance until they give it more study. The Board members have obviously seen enough deeply concerned citizens here tonight to know if a decision is made with the ordinance in its present form, they will be challenged. He thinks they will be doing a serious injustice to the taxpayers' money to spend uhe hundreds of thousands of dollars t~at will be spent in legal fees. He stated that he believes Mr. Davis will probably agree that he cannot guarentee he is going no win this case. Mr. Wood also referred to Mr. Samuels' opinion, and the difference of opinions of other appraisers. Mr. Wood said he personally does not think the Supervisors will win such a case, and he believes reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion. He believes an ordinance can be achie%ed that will work, ands/though everybody may not get what they want, it should not seriously affect the people. He hopes the Supervisors take some of the comments made tonight into consideration and study them and develop something they can feel reasonably comfortable they can defend. Mr. Dude Western announced that he is not a resident of Albemarle County, hut he owns land on Pasture Fence Mountain. He said he doesn't know what 'the County officials are up to, because the mountains are in good shape. He referred to the Planning Commission meeting when erosion problem~ were shown. This erosion was in a National Park, and it was there because the Government doesn't know how to manage anything. The top of the mountain being discussed is not being eroded. He emphasized that the Albemarle County government is up to something, because nothing had been done for years and years, and suddenly the County government wants to start something. He said it does not ~ake seru~e to him, and he thinks for the best interest of every- body, they should tell the citizens what they have on their minds and wha~ they are planning for the future. He again referred to the Planning Commis- sion meeting. The commissioners were the most disrespectful people he had ever seen. He stated that half of them couldn't be heard, and the other half walked in and out of the meeting. He commented that they w~re hearing the people, but they were not listening. They had made up their m/uds what they were going to do before they got to the meeting, and you could tell their minds were somewhere else. He indicated that this was a bad situation for people in public office. Ne added that the Supervisors have not been too much better because they have been Up and down and in end out all of the-time. He told the Board members if they have already made up their mind to pass the ordinance, the best thing for them to do on election day next time is to get out of town, because they will not be re-elected. Ne said he does not ur~derstand what it is all about, because the mountain is not eroding, and it is not going anywhere. He noted that he has been traveling this mountain for over 40 years, and it is in better shape _than the Park, which is Federal land. Ne also mentioned that the mountain land is in better shape than the State and County roads. Ne said when a person's land is devalued, money is being taken out of his pocket. Mr. Sid Shumate noted that he is an electrical engineering graduate, and is employed full-time as a broadcast engineer and appraiser with BIA Media, Inc., in Chantilly, Virginia. HOwever, he said he 1lyes in Albemarle County, although it is a long commute. He informed the Board that he is also the Ms/lager at Blue Ridge Video Services, ~u%d he is a contractor licensed for building electrical and specialty videos, specifically television broadcast facility construction. He also noted that he is the former Director of Engineering at WVIR TV and served as such from 1979 to 1995. He stated that he has some specific comments relating to his specialty which is the building of televis%on and radio facilities on top of these mountains, and he also has some general comments. He then referred to Section 30.8.6 of the proposed ordinance dealing with exempt stzl/ctures. The radio equipment buildings and shelters that accompany radio communications towers appear to be exempted by Section A which allows exemption of an accessory build3-ng of less than 500 square feet. The size of the exemption appears inadequate because the normal size of a television transmitter building ranges from 800 to 1,500 square feet depending on the size of the transmitter. For example, he referred to the present W%r/Rmain transmitter building which was built in 1992, and has 1,300 square fee= of in~ernal floor space. The present full exemption would appear no perpetuate and even promote t. he present poorly organized system of allowing {Page 53) multiple unmatched uncoordinated equipment shelters and buildings to be built helter skelter around the base of multiple usertowers. He pointed out that some of these exist on Carter's Mountain. He said with no restriction, these structures can range from solidly built concrete structures down to flimsy wooden sheds. He noted that he has inspected, evaluated and appraised numerous tower site installations across the U.S., and he suggested that since the question of restricting construction on the mountaintops has been raised, this would be an appropriate time to upgrade the construction requirements and methods for s=rucuures found at the base of radio t~wers. He pointed out that many areas of the U.S. now require that equipment shelters to accommodate multiple user towers be made of fire retardant and fire resistant Class c materials for better construction. He said.a minimum .example would be a masonry structure withes reinforced concrete slab roof supported by the concrete block walls. He stated that also often required is that a multiple section building be consnructed similar in concept of a storage section of commercial lease storage facilities but involving a more fire resistant construction for use by all of the users of a particular tower. The Forest Service promotes the use of such buildings, and these buildings provide fire prevention, as well as fire protection benefits because such buildings are likely to survive brush and forest fires as well as prevent them by containing internal fires until the fire department can arrive. He stated that addi- tional requirements to require the minimization of environmental hazards and eyesores associated with tower sites can be better applied and enforced on a required collaborative site building than on multiple structures. (Mr. informed Mr. Shumate that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Shumate asked if he could leave s copy of his comments with Board members. Mr. Marshall answered affirmatively. Dr. olin West stated that he lives in the Free Union area with his wife and two sons, and he voiced his appreciation to the Supervisors for staying so long at the meeting so everybody could be heard. He said he supports the new Mountaintop ordinance, only he wishes it was stronger. He referred to the Free Union area where he said owners of mountaintop land generally respect the natural beauty of the mountains and they do not visibly build on them. This good judgment deserves everybody's thanks. However, he mentioned two excep- of buildings which are built onthe mountains and can be seen from his property. He pointed out that there are only two of these buildings in an expanse of many miles of mountains, but these two are Iike beacons which beckon the eye, and they definitely interrupt and detract from the natural beauty of the mountains. He stated that each time a new building is built, more of the natural beauty of this area will be permanently compromised, and property values are likely to be hurt. He said it is unfair and untrue to say that this ordinance will take away property owners rights to build, because it does not. He noted that each and every mountain landowner retains the right to build under this ordinance, but there are stipulations that buildings be placed to maximize the beauty of the County as a whole. He stated that in numerous other areas of the country where strong local control has been exerted upon property owners to preserve the natural appearance and beauty of the area, property values have remained high for all. There is plenty of precedence for this and it is not considered pirating of personal property rates. He mentioned, for instance, the two beautiful Massachusetts islar~s of s Vineyard and Nantucket, where property owners are told in no uncer- tain terms by local planning boards not only where to build but with what materials. He remarked that there is rigid control over style, design and size of buildings, and the result is not only the preservation of natural 'beauty, but .remarkable civic pride~and extraordinarily high property values. He said he truly believes Thomas Jefferson would vote for this ordinance, if hs could be here tonight. Mr. Marshall stated that Dr. West was the last speaker to sign up on the sheet. However, he asked if there were others who wished to make comments and, if so, they should come forward. Mr. DonnieDunn, from Free Union, remarked that he picked up a friend at Dulles International Airport on May 5. They were driving through the County, and they were commenting about how beautiful and majestic the mountains are. He has been in the area for approximately 45 years, and he does not see the need to overdo something that is already good. He would like to see a lot more dialogue about this issue before property owners in this County are impeached. He added that they have done a beautiful job of being good stewards of the mountains, and will continue to do so. J=e 10, ~9~8 (BeguZar ~ight Meeting) 000377 (Page 54) Mr. Ralph Maroney noted =hat he owns 500 acres which is going to be directly or indirectly affected by the ordinance, and he fears this is the start of something bigger, He said if the ordinance has a 700 foot elevation limit this year. it may go to 600 feet next year, and there may be only ha!f the amount of rights for the landowners the year after. He referred to the language of the ordinance where it mentions reasonable use of property under appropriate conditions. He said he would really like to know what this statement means because it is not very clear. He mentioned Dr. West's remarks about the starkness of the ~wo houses in the Free Union area, and he said there are two more such houses on the west side of the Southwest Mountains. He remarked that one house is white and the other is made of red brick, but both can be seen for miles and miles, and he thinks this is the real concern. These types of houses ~ave more of an impact than anything else, including all of the elevation and water control measures. He is against this ordi- nance, and it seems to him that the Board should listen to the 46 or 47 landowners with property at this elevation who have spoken against the ordinance. He pointed out that of the 30 peopl? who have spoken in favor of the ordinance, there were only'five or six who were landowners, and the rest are people who live below and want to keep the scenic view. He said if they really want to keep the scenic view, they should pay for it by taking some of their tax money and putting it forward to pay for PBDs. He noted that this has been done in Nantucket, and by doing this, Nantucket is able to compete with developers over pieces of property. He went on to say if this practice is started, there will be a tremendous amount of money coming to the County officials for this purpose. Mr. Marshall inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak before he closed the public hearing. Seeing no one else, Mr. Marshatl closed the public hearing at 12:41 a.m. Mr. Marshall stated that he does not want to vote on this matter tonight or next weak. He wants to ask a lot of questions, and he prefers to vote on the ordinance sometime in August. He added that there are a lot of questions he wants answered before he can support or not support this ordinance. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Marshall is suggesting that the ordinance non he discussed next week. Mr..Marshall answered that he does not want to vote on the ordinance next week, but that does not mean members of this Board cannot overrule him. He went on to say he does not think enough information can be gathered in a week's time to vote on it. Ms. Thomas agreed that Board members won't get enough information by next week, if they do not 'ask questions tonight. She would hate for the Supervisors not to ask questions when they are fresh in their minds, but she would also hate to start a conversation at 12:45 a.m. She suggested that next week will be a bit of a compromise, because it is not so far away that there ca,not be a discussion based on what has been heard tonight including the process input. She added that some of the process xnput has suggested that something quite different ought to happen ~n the next month and not just have the Supervisors go off on their various vacations and then come back and ask some questions. She does not think this responds to the suggestions from people who want a chance to have everything in the forum of another open house, so they know exactly how their land will be affected by this ordinance, to a work session, or a task for6e. She stated that lots of things have been suggested, and she thinks people deserve to have this matter discussed next week rather than just have the time pass. Mr. Martin remarked that he would like to table this discussion until next week. The Supervisors can decide at that time whether or not they want to discuss it further. Mr. Bowerman Suggested that the Supervisors supply their questions to staff by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow while they are still fresh in their minds. The Board could defer this matter until next Wednesday, and if there is not enough information, it will have to be deferred again. However, if Board members are satisfied with the information, they can take action on the ordinance. He said, though, he does not want to foreclose the opportunity to have this information by next week, and he does not want to foreclose the opportunity of asking these questions as soon as possible. Mr. Marshall noted that he does not just want to ask staff questions. He wants to ask some of the professional people questions who only had three minutes to speak tonight. He mentioned Mr. Romenesko who is the head of the 000,.~75 June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 55) largest appraisal group in t-he State of Virginia. Mr. Marshall said his input is very important, and he does ~ot think he heard e~rything he needs to hear from him in three minutes. He stated that Mr. Romenesko is just an example, because there are several other people to whom he needs no talk. He said he has to earn a living, and he is not going to ha~e time to get all of these answers by next week. Mr. Martin agreed that it would be hard to have questions to s~aff by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Mr. Marshall informed the other Board members that if they vote on this ordinance next week before he can get the information he needs to make a proper decision,' he wiG!l vote a~ainst it. Ms. Thomas pointed out that this week will ~ot be very productively spent, if the staff is not given son~ sort of guidance. She assumes this was the impetus to bLT. Bowermazl's suggestion that the staff be given some of the Board members' questions by the close of the day tomorrow. At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to table the discussion on the Mountain Protection Ordinance until next wednesday. MS. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin is suggesting that there be no guidance to staff in the meantime. Mr. Martin said the staff members heard the same comments the Supervisors heard, and if the Hoard members have this conversa- tion tonight, they will be at this meeting for another hour or hour and a half. There will surely be some disagreements among the Hoard members, and he does not think 1:00 a.m. is the time for such a discuss.ion. Ms. Thomas said she was not suggesting that. She commented that she was only picking up on Mr. Bowerman's suggestion. Mr. Bowerman remarked ~hat he does not want to ask any questions now because he really needs to be clear-headed when he goes back over his notes. He does not think staff will have all of the answers tonight anyway, but he would like to get his questions to staff as soon as possible. He added that if other'Board members do not have any.questions, 'or they cannot get them to~ether, then they do not have to give the staff members anything by tomor- row · Mr. Marshall stated that he has five pages of questions, but he is going to work at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, and he will be wor~ing until 8:00 p.m. He does not know when he will have time to get his questions to staff. Mr. Perkins referred to Page Gilliam's recon~aendation that the matter he sent back to the Mountain Protection Committee for 60 or 90 days. He thinks this is the best' idea. He noted that the mountains have been a topic of conversation since 1971, and the Committee has been working on it for three years, so he does not see why two or three months will m~ke any difference. Mr. M~rshall said he needs a motion on this matter before the meeting can be adjourned. Ms. Thomas reminded Mr. Marshall that a motion was already offered to table the matter completely until next Wednesday. Mr. Marshall mentioned that there, is a full schedule for next Wednes- day's meeting. : He asked if this item would be put at the end or the beginning of the agenda. Ms. Thomas suggested that the matter be taken up earlier rather than later. Mr. Bowerman assured Mr. Marshall that he would be present %uatil this matter is discussed next week. His preference is to have a shorter meeting. Mr. Martin mentioned to the Chairman that a motion was on the floor. At this point, Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was then called a~ld the motion carried by the following recorded -;one: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. F~%rshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. J,.~e l?, ~.998 ~Regular Night M~tii~: 000006; (Pag. e 6) Areas. ~owever, this objective should not be interpreted so strictly as to detrimentally affect the viability of existing rural communities such as Esmont. The Planning Commission, at /ts meeting on June 9, 1998, unanimously found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. No action is required of the Board. This memorandum is furnished for information only. Item 5.6. 1997 Development Activity Report for the County of Albemarle as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item 5.7. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board meetings of February 5, March 12 and April 21, 1998, was received for information. Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated J~ne 5, 1998, from J~nice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Gilford Childs, International Cold Storage, re: OFFICIAL DETE~4INATION - Assembly of Modular Buildings, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. April 1998 Financial Report for General, School and Capital Funds, received' for information. It was noted that General Fund revenue projects were revised as of December 31, 1997. Estimated Food and Beverage Tax revenues Of $1.216 million added to the projections. General Fund expenditure pro3ections have been revised to reflect a two-percent holdback for operating expenses. Education expenditure projections have been revised to reflect the release of the full 7.5 percent operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. Item 5.10. Letter dated June 8, 1998, from the Honorable James S. Gilmore, III, Governor, to the Honorable Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., providing notice that Albemarle County has been awarded a Community Improvement Grant in the amount of $400,000 for its Community Development Black Grant project. Letter was received for information. (Ms. Humphris noted the County had attempted to obtain this grant for years and she is qui~e pleased that Albemarle County has finally achieved it. Mr. Marshall noted t~t once all the money comes in, the County stands to receive a total of $750,000.) A~enda Item No. 6. CPA 98-01, Mountains; ZTA 98-05, Mountain Overlay District {MOD) and related provisions; ZMA 98-10, Mountain Overlay District from June 10, 1998). Mr. Cilimberg said a memorandum setting forth the staff's summary and recommendations had been sent to the Board in response to comments made at the previous week's pu/olic hearing. There were five areas which provided potential change in the MOD to further clarify issues raised. He then asked Ms. Mary Jo Scala, Senior Planner, to explain those issues and advise the Board of a suggestion brought from the public. Ms. Scala noted that there have been five changes from the June 8 staff report. 1) Delete Section 30.8.5, Private Roads, in its entirety, since the Engineering Department has said that the current private roads regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance are more restrictive. 2) Revise Section 30.8.4.c to permit a lot by special use permit in whole or in part within the Ridge Area. This revision was suggested by the County Attor~ley and does not alter the intent, but allows a lot to straddle the ~idge Area for example if the ridge is small or narrow. 3) Clarify the definition of "building site" in Section 3.0 by the addition of the words "based on" added before ~contour interval of 20 feet." This change clarifies that 20 feet is the %u~ifcrm standard, even though the topographical map avail~oie may show 20, 20 or 40-foot contour internals. 4) The County Engineer requested that p~rt of Section 4.2.01, Constructed Emba-nkmenns, be revised to replace ~a vertical rise or fall of two feet" with ~a vertical rise or fall of five feet." This change provides that 000007 June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Me,ting} (Page 7) embankments smaller than five feet in height will not be subject to the regulations. 5) The Board may wish to consider deletion of Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, and to consider addressing driveway regulations separately at a later date. This section requires minlmum 2:1 side slopes on driveways and building pads throughout the County. Although 2:1 slopes are currently required as a matter of Engineering Department policy, this section would make the requirement a Zoning Ordinance regulation. Driveway regulations were originally proposed for safety and soil erosion prevention reasons. This section addresses only soil erosion. Questions have been raised as to whether it requires additional undesirable grading and clearing, and whether a minimum requirement for a driveway gradient should have been included. Finally, in order uo be consistent, small areas adjacent to main mountains have been designated as ridges, even though they are much lower in elevation than the ridge on top of the larger mountains. A citizen recommendation is that sites lower than 100 feet above the minimum elevation for a MOD no= be considered ridge areas, and staff agrees. This would mean that ridge areas would only be areas within 100 feet from the top of the larger mountains. Ms. Thomas stated that it makes sense to her to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment because it has not been the subject of negative comments and provides guidance for what the Board might do nexu. It does not say what kind of strategies the Board must adopt, although it recommends possibilities. During research, she came upon the minutes of the September 16, 1971, Board meeting, where Mr. Gordon Wheeler moved an addition to the Comprehensive Plan listing the conservation objectives and saying that the mountain slopes should be protected. This has been a part of the Comprehensive Plan, but has never been moved on in any significant way. This amendment would send a messazje to the community that the Board is doing what most speakers seem to want the Board to do--take care of the mountains. She would be embarrassed to ask staff or the citizens to do further wDrk without amending the Comprehensive Plan. Motion was made ~ Ms. Thomas. seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Chapter 2, the Natural Environment Open Space Resources, CPA-98-0!, Mountains. Ms. Humphris added that she appreciated the work done by staff and citizens to create this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Martin ~sked Mr. Ci!imberg 'how he felt about the prospect of adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment without adopting the MOD Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Open Space Plan was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan several years ago. Adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment would further define a policy statement about the importance of protecting the mountains, as well as goals, objectives and strategies that would be related. Until an Ordinance is put into place, however, there would obviously be no regulatory aspect implemented. However, it sets the framework for staff's reference in terms of the importance of the mountains and activities that occur there. The Comprehensive Plan amendment comes into consideration when determining whether a special use permit should be granted in mountain areas, since part of a special use permit review relies on the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan for a particular area. If there is going to be further review of ordinance amendments, it is always good to have the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as a basis for review. Mr. Bowerman asked if adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow the Board to consider strengthening regulations for the location of towers in the Mountain Resource Area. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that it would certainly do so, and said it was called to staff's attention by Mr. Davis that the Comprehensive Plan amendment must be addressed if the Board pla~s to adopt any ordinances. Mr. Marshall said he has a problem with the Board hearin~ protests from the public when something is not done according to the Comprehensive Plan, a~d then the Board simply revises the Comprehensive Plan. The Board does not always approve a specialuse permit just because of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board often votes against a special use permi~ due =o concerns about the health and safety issues involved in a particular case. He would like to see all three items passed at once. He would like to see a Mountain Ordinance but have it go to the Mountain Committee first for suggesticrns. Voting for the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be ~puttin~ the cart before the horse." It would say the Board would have to have a Mountain Ordinance, which may not be June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting} (Page 8) 000005 the case. There may a!readybe something in place to deal with the issues. Mr. Marshall said that he would not support the motion. He would prefer to send it back to the Committee. There are many private property owners who did not know about this and hence, did not have input. There are families in the audience who do not agree this is a good ordinance. He would support a Mountain Ordinance to keep speculators away from the County, but as long as Albemarle County is getting good publicity it will keep bringing people to the area. He said he had asked Mr. Ivan Romanesko to give him information. Ms. Thomas asked whether this was relevant to the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Marshall replied that it was, since it was all related: the amendment, .the MOD, the whole thing. He was afraid that if the Board passed 'the Comprehen- sive Plan amendment tonight, it would have to go along with the Mountain Ordinance later on. ~ Ms. Humphris said the Comprehensive Plan amendment is something the Board has asked for and ~anted for years. It simply states the importance of mountains to the County; it does no= obligate anyone to vote for anything. It needs to be in place under any'circumstance to deal with towers and other matters. Mr. Marshall said that every time an issue comes before the Board, the Comprehensive Plan is treated as though it were law. He would rather do all three things =ogether to make it law, and suggested sending i~ back to the Mountain Committee, adding property owners as members of the Committee. Ms. Humphris said there was a motion on the floor involving solely the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Martin said the Board and the Planning Commission have been focused on the ordinance. He had been out of town for the last few days and had not read Ms. Thomas' E-mail message. He had heard she was going to do this and had read her comments in the newspaper. Some people may say that this is a delay tactic and she may indeed be right that there is a need to move forward on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but he has been focused solely on the ordinance. Before the vote on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, he would like some time to focus on that, and asked that it be postponed until the next meeting. Mr. Marshall concurred and said that he believed the public thought the Board was going to look at everything together. Ms. Thomas said, if it were the intention of Mr. Marshall and ~r. Martin to kill the ordinance, then certainly they should vote against the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Marshall said he was not against the ordinance, he just wanted one that would work. Ms. Thomas said if the Board members vote for it, they sincerel~ mean that they want some respect shown to the mountains. There should be some embarrassment asking staff and the Committee to continue working'on something that has been worked on for quite some time~ if there is no intention to ever look seriously at an ordinance or to do something for the mountains. The Comprehensive Plan amendment will be useful in dealing with towers. The Board should have taken this action months ago to give some guidance to the Committee and community. A vo~e not to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment will ma~e it difficult to get the kind of devoted work the Board has asked for to continue. Mr. Marshall said he did no= want to vote against the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but he would vote against it if he had to vote tonight. Mr. Martin said that everything has been considered together until now. It might be a good idea to separate them, but he would have liked some advance notice. Mr. Bowerman said it has been in the packet since the beginning of the discussion. It codifies the Board's values and has no specific guidelines; it is simply a statement of intent. He sees no harm in adoptin~ the amendment. Mr. Martin said that it was initiated in 1971 with the first Comprehensive Plan and asked why it could no= wait a few more weeks. It might be appropriate to separate the issues, but he sees no need to rush on this. At this point, ~r. Bowerma~moved the question. Mr. Perkins-asked Mr. Davis how, if this amendment were adopted, it would affe=t a special use permit for land located 'in the MOD. Mr. Davis replied that it would simply provide the Board with a guide to form an opinion as to whether the special use permit was appropriate development. One primary consideration when looking at a special use permit is whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perkins asked what the sentence saylng t. hat t. he Mountain Protection Plan was attached as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan meant. Mr. ~e ~7, ~ {Reeler Night ~etin~l 00000~ {Page 9) Cilimberg said that the Mo~tain Co, tree doc~t would be used as a reference document ~. Ma~in asked if this me~t ~e do~ment in front of ~e Boa~ would have to be cleaned up. Mr. Cili~r~ said "no", the two doc~ents go to,ether, there is no need for a ch~e. Roi1 ~s called ~d t~ ~es%ion was called by the following recorded vote: A~S: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowe~, ~s. Humphris, Mr. ~rsha!l, Mr. Mart~ and Mr. Perk,s. NAYS: None. Roll was called, and the motion to adopt CPA 98-0I failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Marti~ and Mr. Perkins Motion was mede by Mr. Perkins to send the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Mountain Overlay District ordinance beck to Mountain Committee, saying that. he felt that it needed more work. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin, after amending it to say that t~e two should be separated and have the Comprehensive Plan amendment come back to the Board at the next meeting at which all members will be present, with the ordinance following later. Mr. Perkins acquiesced to the amendment. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board needs to spend more time GU this to perfect it, because of the amount of public input. She felt that the Board should have a work session with staff,.not send it back to the Committee. Mr. Marshall asked where input from the landowners was going to come from. Mr. Perkins said the Committee needs to see those comments as well. Mr. Martin said the people who spoke at the public hearing should be included. Some people did not realize that the ordinance involved them, since it includes more than just the top of the.mountains. After listening to many of the comments made, he felt that if the goal were to keep unsightly homes out of sight, the best place is sometimes on the ridge, because it is less obtrusive. He has seen situations where following the ordinance would lead to worse situations than violating the ordinance, so what is being achieved today may not be the Board's objectives. Now that people know the discussion concerns them, he would like to see t_hem involved at some level. Mr. Bowerman felt it was the Board's responsibility and that the Board should.be involved, rather than sending it to Committee. Ms. Thomas said the Committee and staff should provide advice to the Board as to the best process to follow. An issue that embroils so many people deserves a process that allows the Board to investigate it thoroughly. The Committee was no= charged with holding public hearings and though the Committee members were to keep the people informed, some did a better job than others. She would like to have staff and the Committee advise the Board on the process as well as content. She would prefer a work session with the Board, as it is the'Board who has to be satisfied. Staff has done a magnificent job of trying to please everyone. Mr. Davis cautioned the Board that, under its Rules of Procedure, since the vo:e on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment failed, it is a denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Before the Board does anything further with it, there should be e motion to reconsider CPA-98-01. If that motion passes, the Board would be in a position to defer it for further study; otherwise, CPA-98- Ol may have to start over. The Board needs to deal with the Comprehensive Plan amendment issue at this meeting in order :o keep it alive. Mr~ Marshall asked if this would put the Board in the same position as they were in tonight, with not having the necessary information on the Mountain Ordinance and Mountain Overlay District. Mr. Davis replied that the Board could defer it as long as they want. A deferral would give th6 Board &s long as they need to gather information. Mr. Martin suggested that Ms. Thomas make a motion tO send the, ordinance back to staff for further recommendations on where the ordinance should go for further study. Ms. Thomas suggested that the word "process" be in the motion, so that staff can make recommendations on what kind of process should be followed. ~r. Perkins noted tiler some of the Committee members have requested June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Pa~e 10) O000iO to be included in any further study, which is why he wanted it sent back to them. Ms. Thomas said that she did not exclude that, but she feels that what is needed firsu is an outline of the best process to be followed. Sending it back to the Committee is a way to either kill it, defer i~ indefinitely or begin an interactive process with community input. She did not wan= to send it back to the Committee withouu any guidance on what they were to do with it. Mr. Perkins withdmew his previous motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to reconsider the voue on CPA-98-0!. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer CPA-98-01 until it can be reconsidered in a work session on August 5., 1998. Mr. Martin asked if this was going to be t-he nexu meeting that the entire Board would be present and was told it would be. Mr. Marshall suggested t-hat staff not put that much more on the agenda that day. Mr. Bowerman asked who the Board would be discussing the Comprehensive Plan amendment with, public, staff or Commi=uee members. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin' said to just make it a work session, and discuss the particulars afterwards. Mr~ Bowerman asked what would be done at the work session, other than just talk amongst themselves. Mr. Martin said that if he had any specific questions, he would ask them of staff before the meeting. Ms. Humphris suggested that if anyone had any questions on CPA-98-01, they send them to staff. Mr. Martin noted that there were other meetings between now and August 5 at which questions could be asked. Mr. Marshall suggested that certain other people be inviUed to attend the work session with the Board. Mr. Martin said that he had no problem with others being invited to the meeting. Mr. Marshall said there were quite a few people whose opinion-he wished to have, and wanted them to be at the work session so the Board could ask them questions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. I~AYS: None. Mr. Perkins asked if the Board needed to give staff further direction regarding the other items. Mr. Davis said that since the Board took no direction on the other items, the staff has no direction as to when they should be put back on the agenda. It would be helpful if the Board directed staff that these items be continued until August 5, or defer them to some other time since staff needs direction as to when ~he Board wishes to reconsider these items. Mr. Marshall suggested that all of them be considered at the work session. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that staff and the Mountain Committee present to the Board a proposal on how to proceed with the Mountain' Overlay District Ordinance by the next ~oard meeting. Roll Was called and the motion carried by the followin~ recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. A~enda Item No. 7. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs 18 & 19). Public hearing on a request to rezone approx 53.02 acs fro~ PRD to R-4. Loc on N side of Rt 691 (Jarman's Gap Rd) approx 1.3 mi W of Crozet (Deferred from Febru~I-/; 18, 1998.) Fir. Cilimberg said the applicant has prepared proffers to go along with 000057 July ~, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) A~enda Item No. 15a. Executive SEssion: Legal Matters. At 12:35 p.m., ~otion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to enter into executive session pursuant to Section 2.I.344(A) of the Code of Viz~3inia u~lder subsection (3) to discuss a request to dispose of publicly-owned property; and, under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding a claim asserted against the County and to discuss a specific legal matter regardin~ a cooperative agreement. Roll was called and the motioD carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman Agenda Item No. 15b. Certify Executive Session. At 1:45 p.m., motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that ~he Board certify by a recorded vote that to the bes~ of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called {uld the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 16. Discus;ion: Process for review of Mountain Protection Ordinance (ZTA-98-05) and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA-98-01) review. {Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 1:46 p.m.) Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner, said the Board, at its meeting on June t7, 1998, deferred action on the Proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Ordinance and related amendments (ZTA-98-05, ZMA-98-10, CPA-98-61) until August 5. The Board directed that staff and.~. Mountain Protection Committee to present the Board with a proposal.for how to proceed with review of ~he MOD ordinances by today's meeting. Ms. Scala said her recommendation is to meet with the Mountain Committee sometime in July to see if they have any new comments based on the'public hearings. On August 5, hold a work session on al! three components. .Following the work session, the Board's options are to: adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) alone, adopt the CPA and Zonin~ Map Amendmen~ (ZMA), or adopt all three. If more discussion is desired on the Zoning Texu Amendment. (ZTA) or ZMA, staff recommends that the Board decide which specific provisions it may wish to pursue, notify the public of its intent an~ schedule an additiogal meeting in September for further discussion and/or input from specific individuals. As far as keeping the public informe~, the mos~ recent MOD ordinance draft is displayed on the Internet and will be kept updated. After the August 5 meeting, additional public information may consist of: an informational advertisement in the newspaper outlining the latest draft of the ordinance~ or a second open house with notification by the mailing of letters to individual property owners. Before the next meeting, she would ask that the Board give her names of specific properties they would like to have used as examples, and if they have any specific comments, that would be helpful. Ms. Thomas noted that she was the Board liaison to this committee and that they were ~o~ng to have a meetin~ while she was ouu of town, so someone else may want to play that role. Mr. Marshall said he would be glad to meet with them. A~enda Item No. 17. Discussion/Presentation: Proposal for Recodification of uhe Code of Albemarle. .... """ .... :-" '" ' -' oOo1.,2 August 5, 1'998 (Regular Day Meeting). ' .. (Page 23} ........ ~,~ ..; '-.?zai:~;v.:. '%: '. ¥.. ':. . " - Mr. Watson said the ordinance is 'more balanced now, and that the t~ree organizations support it. Ms. Thomas asked 'about low-pressu~e's6diu~ ligh%s. Ms. Scala said they are a high-intensity discharge lamp, and most e~ceed 3~000 lumens. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Persor%nel and Legal Matters. At 12:2~ p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into executive session pursuant to §2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to Boards and-Commissions and to discuss personnel matters relating to the performance of ~pecific employees; and under subsection (7) uo consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding a claim asserted against the County. Ms. Hum~hris seconded the motion. Roll was called and'the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executiv~ Session. At 2:00 p.m., motion was i~ediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by MS. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion passed'by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris~ Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. '%gend~ Item No. 13B. Work Sessions: CPA-9'8-0!, Mo~tains; ZTA-gS-05, Mountain Overlay District and related pr6=ksions; and ZMA-98-i0,' Mountain Overlay'District. Ms. Scala said the Board'held a public hearing on the proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD} Ordinance amendments and Comprehensive plan Amendment (CPA) on Jui~"'~0~ 1998, continued discussion on J0n~"~7';'~'~998, and deferred action on all three"amendments ~ntil August 5, 1998. 'The Board directed staff to present a proposal to them (which the Board appro~ed'on'Ju!y 1, 1998, and ~h~c~ ~"-~-6n file in the Clerk's office),' regarding how to proceed with the ~ev~ew o~ the MOD ordinance. The Mountain Committee met twice in July to dis6uss public hearing comments and the content of the latest version of the ordinance. The con~nittee's comments are on file in the Clerk's office. Staff was asked to be prepared to review the CPA and the latest version of the ordinance, and discuss the Co~ittee's recommendations, regarding =he ordinance at this Board meeting. Using the p~opo~e~ z?ning maps, staff. W~ also asked tO presemt several examples of how the'ordinance would affect specific mou/ltain properties. Ail three amendment~ w~re ready be adopted at this or a later sche-daled meeting. . The Mou_nta/zls'section of the Comprehensiv~ Plan identifies mountain resources, as well as why and how t~ey should be.protected. Although moun- tains have been discussed in all' previous ~omprehensive Plans ~ince 1971, this section is a more detailed discussion, based on the committee's 1995 Mountain Protection Pla~'.. The Mountains section is an integral peru of Chapter Two, the Natural Environment section of the Plan, which the Commission'has most recently been working on. The importance of adopting the CPA., whether alone or along.with the proposed MOD. ordinance and maps, is nhe Comprel~en~iv~ Plan i~ used to..guide all land use decisions. The 1992 Open Space Plan defi~es mountain areas, which'have been used in discussions of cellular tower locations, rural preservation deye!opments, and other development proposaIs in mountain areas. The proposed CPA will provide additional data and guidance assembled by the Committee ~o inform.future land use decisions. The Committee's suggestions indicate continued .support for the most recen~ version of r-he'MOD-Ordinance. They recommend that more time is needed to educate the public about the ordinance. Additional public information sessions regarding the pr6posed ordinance as suggested by the Committee are desirable, but will require staff time and resources, which will affect other projects. Staff recommends (1) notification of the pubtic through a newspaper ad or direct mailings (direct ma~ling~ require more staff time, but may be more effective); (2) ~n~-on-one meetings between staf~ and property owners to be scheduled in the County Office Building, rather.than severalCounty locations; and (3) maintaining current information on the Mountain Ordinance on the Internet-site. Zoning maps may be adopted without the ordinance. Adoption of the maps alone, wit~hout the full MOD Ordinance, WOUld imPlement the MOD soil erosion provisions in the Water Ordinance. Ms. Scala said staff recommends adoption of CPA-98-0!. Staff further recommends the Board decide which specific provisions of the ordinance it may wish to pursue, notify the pub!i6 of its intent, and schedule additional meetings in'September for further discussion. She advised the Board that Mr. Perkins disco+ered an error in the Debris Flow section, regarding slope percentages. She said the proposed Ordinance states that debris flows'occur on slopes greater than 26 de~rees, which was 'equated to a 67 percent slope. That is incorrect. A 2:1 slope, -~hich is rough!y a 50 percent slop~, works out to 27 degrees, so a 26 degree s~ope would be 48.5 percent. Mr. Marshall said before he could adopt ~e ComPrehensive. Plan Amendment (CPA), he needed to know what this means to the public. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide, but it is treated l'ike law. Mr. Davis said when Planning -~staff does its analysis of whether or not a rezoning is appropriate, they refer, to the Comprehensive' Plan as a guide. The MO~. and Water Protection Ordinances are already u~ed; this provides further guidance on elevations in the Comprehensiye Plan. During development requests for specia~ use permits, this would be a-resource to the Board. Mr. Tucker said it will be especially helpful dealing withspecial use permits in the. RAdistricts. Mr. Bowerma~ asked what the effect voul.d be if this is not passed. The Comprehensive Plan currently references slopes wh~nd~s6ussing t0wers~' and'he asked if 'that would suffice, if ~he Board is not willing to adopt the language to which other sections refer. Mr. Davis said the language proposed does not enhance the-'abitity to deal with towors-. The Board"currently relies on the Comprehensiv~ Plan lot'.guidance, so the arguments can.already be made. Mr. Marshall said without the ability to have purdhase of do~elopmen= rights (PDR'S), the Board i~ e~sentiatl~ down~oning property, Which economi- cally impacts property owners. Mr. Davis said the adopti6n of the ComPrehen2 sive Plan does not downzone property, and the o~dinance may or may not downzone i~. 'Landowners still 'have' sufficieht use 'of their property. Ms. Scala added that the ComPrehensive plan wouldhave no imPact On by-ri~h~ or subdivis£on ~ppii~ati~ns, but staff'woul~ he"able '~0 use .it i~ =a~eS not covered unde~ those applications. Mr.' Martin said adopting the CPA would not mean adopting a~y re~Fula- tions. The objective is to pursue additional protective measures. Mr. Marshall suggested the Board find cue what it ma~ pursue, but Mr. Perkins .said that would require further study. He. felt it made no difference whether or not the C~A is passed. Mr. Bowerman said the Task Force recommended the CPA.be. separated from the MPC, so there could be modificatior~of language.in the MOD ordinance, if it is ever adoptedl The CPA itself is consist..en~ w~h.t~e.ComP~ehensive Plan. The second issue, regarding maps, fs more comp~ic~t~d.'-Thirdly; 'the~oard should ~ake all the'uime it needs'to fini. sh the lan.gu~.~ge. Ms. Sc&la said. the. . Board ~an adopt the CPA without any fu-~t~r r~ulauion~, and it will still serve 'a very useful purpose. When someone asks the Board to rmake a l~nd use decision, the Board can..!ook uo .the CPA for guida~e. .. -. AugUst 5, 1998 (Re~lar Day M~eting) (Page 2S) Mr. ~er said there ~e provisions ~ the ord~ce now that allow applic~t (outside of the watershed area) to apply for a special use to put up additio~ ~its. In t~t inst~ce, the Co~r~ensive Pl~ ~ght give staff ~idel~es as they ~e their reco~datio~. Mr. Mars~ll said staff ~s ade~ate reso~ces au their disposal now. He feels the only thing this does is t~e away the property rights of in~vid~ls while the Board really w~ts to curtail l~d speculators. Regar~ng the purchase of developm~t rights, ~. ~o~s said the B~rd is sending the messa~e that it is not i~o~= to protect the mo~tains. Mr. Mart~ said the Board is in favor of ~ing something ~o ~sure the beauty of the mo~ta~. ~e ~A addresses some measles =~t wo~d help in ~t re~ard. Most.of the m~s~es outlined. ~ the CP~ are all a~eed upon ~ eye.one, ~t thee ~ght be disagreement amon~ Board me. ers re~arding the MOD Or~n~ce. ~ere are no ~es ~d re~lations for enforcement; there are simply suggestions ~d reco~en~tions. Those w~ voted against the MOD Ordin~ce were seen as development-ori~ted and ~tin~ the mo~tains, w~le those who vo~ed for it were painted as mo~tain lovers ~d ~ving no problem t~ing a~y property rights. Mr. M~shall' said he shared ~. ~rtin's conce~s: He does not want to ca~e prope~y o~er~ to sp~d money they ~y not ~ve. He believes cu~t l~ers ~e already do~g a ~ood job of protectinff their mo~tain prope~y, ~d he is conceded ~ose people will be forced into selling their l~d ~o develope~. Mr. Bowe~ said ~e consensus of the Board was to adop~ the CPA. silly co~fies w~ the Board has been doing for years. It also allows, reviewin~ a ~ecial user pe~t, consideration of where p~per=Y is located. This ~y ~ ~ impact on a developer who w~shes ~o e~d ~e n~r of lots ~hat c~ be co~cted on a parcel of l~d, Mr. Bowe~ ~en ~e4 the adoption of CPA-98-01, ~d am~t to the Co~reh~sive Pl~, ~pter ~o, The Natural Enviro~t, to include a section on -Mo~tains", inclu~ng a list of mo~tains described by conto~ elevation; ~d to amid the Op~ Space ~d Critical Resources Pl~ Concept Map descrip- tion of Mo~ta~s by c6ntour elevation, ~d stated ~at the Board s~l d~l wi~ the other two issues separately. Ms. H~phris seconde~ ~e moEion. ~. Perk.s asked if adopting the CPA would =reatea new water resources ~ea. ~. Da~s .replied, ~No. ~ Mr. Perkins said that m~= the mo~tains w~d re~ pare of ~e ~ra! areas. ~. Scala sa~d ~e Board would ~ve to adopu the MOD ~ order for t~t section to apply. Mr. B~e~ ask~ whether the ~ps are part of the district. Mr. Davis said the C~reh~ive Pl~ does not establish ~ overlay district. The Water reso~ces areas referenced in the Water Resg~c~s Ordinance are not addresse~ ~ ~he,.C~reh~sive pl~- ~. ~rs~ll suggested the Board make a decision on adoptin~ ~e MOD before ad~ti~ ~e CPA. Mr. Perkins said the Board is non ready ~o ad~t the MOD. Mr. ~ said e~sis ~ be~ placed on protectin~ resources promot~g p~lic safety. He asked if the CPA really protects p~lic safety, Ms. scala said ~wo areas the Co~ittee identifie~ as p~lic safety items are access for emerg~ ~cles and =he potential for debris flows. ~. ~rtin asked if ~ere ~s really been a problem with p~lic safety. Ms. Scala said if a fire t~ co~d not reach one house, it co~d affect nei~ors. ~. Bowe~ said t~s came into play recently wh~ there was a hu~e wildfire on one side of a mo~ta~. ~. ~rtin said the Co~r~siv~ Ptan ~d MOD were no: ~ wi~ protecting p~tic safety in m~d. ~. ~o~s said the Co~ttee's repot= i~cluded p~lic safety, although c~ce~s were not neces- sarily listed ~ te~s of their priority. The theme' rea~ears dis~ssions, ~d she therefore disagrees t~t safety is ~ot of i~o~ce. ~. Perk.s said this is a do~le-edged swo~. If the Board puts too ~ch e~sis on p~lic safety, it could force people into b~l~n~ e~ensive roa~ where ~ey ~e not n~ded. The Board could also be c~ating ~e e~ectation ~t so.one's home will be protected, but t~t c~ot be teed. The Bo~ c~ot protect eye.one from eve~h~g. Ms. Tho~s said p~lic safety ad~esses more th~ fir~ z~c~. It ad~esses protection from erosion ~d oth~ ~ge to property. ~. M~tin said he w~ non i~lying p~lic safety is ~i~ort~t, but it does mot seem to be a predomi~t factor. 0005.~5 (Page 26) .................... ' .-.,~.~=,~:~.~.~ =~.~ ... _ .......... ...- . ......... -.. Mr. Marshall said the purpose of ~he 'CPA is to p~vent ~rowth in the County. That cannot be done, but growth can be" controlled by what is already in place. Ms. Humphris said the CPA states clearly what the vas= majority of the County citizens have. asked the Commission, the Board and staff to do; come up with a statemenb of What the BSard values in the natulral environment of the County's open space ~source~ and p0ssib~6 ways'to protect them, in light of the fact that the County is go%ng to grow. There must be something in writing that ekplains 'what the Board values. This wit~ enhance ~roperty values, because the Board is showing a commitment to protectingwhat is 'valued. Mr. Marshal% sai~ passin~ ordinances that:take away the. rights of. homeowners goes against the~ forefathers'-wishes.' Mr. Perkins said he would vote for the CP~, although he' disagrees with some of the contents and considers them mainly suggestions, not laws. Mr. Martin.~greed with Mr. Perkins, saying that the suggestion that property owners are not good stewards affronts landowners who are good stewards of their property. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has Stopped a~ the mountains and the rural areas. The County has a. land use assessment that recogn/zes that there is an important component that urban areas also get from that resource~ whic is between $5.0 and $6.0 million per year. This is in recognition that this is important property, and a value is paid by all citizens to protect them. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and-Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. (At this time, the Board took UP the discussion on ZTA-98-05., Mountain Overlay'District and related provisions, and ZMA-98.-t0, Mountain Overlay District.) MS. Scala said Section D, page 3, which menu$oned constructed embank- menns,'wi!l be placed under C~-neral Regulations in th~ Zoning Ordinance and will apply CoLLnty-wide. to clriveways and building'pads that are constructed. If a slope is created, it may not be constructed steeper than 2:1, unless it can be shown to be stabilized. This meens that si~e slopes have to be stabilized when grading iz done. Nor do~s the p%an regulate the grade of driveways or the tu~ing =adius. The purpose i~ to prevent soil erosion. The Committee was split on this ~equirement. Some members felt it shou/d be kept in the ordinance and adopted, since the Eng~neerin~ .Department tries to follow this guideline now, but it is not in enywri~ten foiTa. Other members felt it should not be adopted at this timebecause it should be included.s~p'arately, or at least'not i~cluded in discussion on the mountains. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was disagreement on all of §4.2.017 Ms. Scala replied, ~Yes."' 'The Committee's'view is that there wouId..be more cost upf~ont due to grading, but that stabilized slopes'reduce erosion, and' it would cost less to maintain the property than if ero~gn' occurred. Mr. Marshall asked why someone should be force~ 'to build'further down from a ridge, where the site is more visible, when building on a ridge may disturb less lend and be less visible. Ms. Scal~ said ~ prope~y owner can apply for a special use permit. Mr. Marshall said all homeowners need now is a building site and a building'permit-' A-parcel on ~op of a'moua/tain could sell for a lot more .money than one lower on a mountain, representing a loss of money, to the owner. Ms. Scala said everyone needs to consider what is best for the County as a whole. Mr. Bowerman'said the Boar~ accepts that'a ~6o~~ %i~W"is ~mp6~b2~t;' but has to address the fact that different locations have their own characteris- the pubIic. There 'slr6::situatlons for whmch app~oval's grs~ted 'bg the ~om~isslon and '~he B~rd for=environmen=al' and ' ecenomio development in a certain location. ~Ir. Marshall ~aid teliin~ someone they cannot build on a mountain 'devalues'thef~'p~pe~Y- Mr. BOWerman said the'righ~'tha~ e_xi~s"today may · ..:~::..;,..:~,,-... 000~.~.6 Au9~st 5, 1998 {Re9~lar Day' Meeting)' (Page 27) - .-:,..~-;~:~,. ~.. ~..' ~-.-,,.~ . ._ .~ .. not allow a developer to put s building site on a :idgetop. This will allow each. application to he examined individually. Every legislative act requires an element of trust. Ms. Scala explained what the proposed MOD states about the location of homes on mountaintops. Section 30.8.4, item C, addresses the situation where a landowner wants to create ~ building site on a ridge, for a new house. The landowner may obtain a special use permit if a development right would otherwise be lost. The Committee was' concerned Whethe~ t~at would be the only criteria, but the section further states the landowner must meet the intent of the MOD =o approve a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman clarified that someone could ultimately lose a development right if they dould not move a site further down the slope~ Ms. Scala'agreed that was 'a possibility. Bowerman said there would also be a possibility that, if there were purchase of development rights, those rights could be purchased, if the 'criteria was met. Ms. Scala s~id Section ~8.4.d. is the s~cond provision allowing someone to apply for a special use permit. If a building site 6xlsts below a poten- tial site, a. landb~er may want'to move it further up on the ridge if it would be better environmentally. The Committee also wanted to see specific criteria listed for special use permits so landowners could see upfront whether they stood a good chance of getting one approved. She said it woul~ be difficult to write specific criteria ~hat. would 9%uarantee acceptance. A~applicant wouldhave to meet the intent of the MOD, meet ~eneral special us~'permit criteria {n the Zoning Ordinance, and follow the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas sai~ if someone had five. development rights, it is possible they could find o~ly four sites. Without the change to Section B.2, someone could have been guaranteed a development right they did not really have. Mr. Martin said the way the language had been written previously, someone would have been given a right only if the ordinance took it away. If the right was lost for other reasons, there is no ~uarantee they would get it back. Ms. Scala said Section C would say if someone had a building site on the ridge and the ordinance s~id they could not build there, end the only reason they could not bui.ld was begause of the ordinance, a special use permit is a way to retrieve the development right. Ms. Scala then, referring to the bulletin board, provided examples of the impact the MOD would have on certain properties-,-=-= In the first example, Mr. Howard, who has approximately 200 ac~es -on Carter"s Mountain, has a lot of potsnt~al d~elop&ent right's, .aha he 'coups de4~l~p sites.' Some of his property is inside the MOD; 'some is outside the MOD, a~d some is on the ridge. By conventioaal development %u~der the ordina~ce, he could develop .the small lots outside-the MOD, he co~ld-develop 21-acre lots inside the MOD, pro,tided he has building'sites (it appeared that 5e had · ttuzee), and he could not use =he th_Tee or four sites on the ridge area without a special'use permit.. Under 'th% MOD', ~taff-~6uld probabl~ recon~n~nd he do a 'Rural Prese~vatiOn development, clustering houses in the lower area. Ms. Tho~s asked if there is a road there that can be accessed from that property. Mr. Mars/tall said, "Yes." Mr. Bowerman asked if the road that lead~ f~om "th~ dO~n~lop~ to' th~ tod of ~he r~"~il6w"acde~ tO other properties along the ridge: Mr. Marshall. said, ~It c~Uld. It is a loggin~ road.~ Dr. McCluskey 'has two parcels on'Carter's Mountain, one is over 100 acres, and one is about 65 acres. Most of his property is outside the MOD, and only one small part would be affected. He has.lo=~ of bu~.'lding, sites, especially ~own below the .ridge, a~ well as So~ o~ 't&p.' He' c~u-%d build on k~otls' 'If he wanted no build on the MOD, ~e wo~d b~ve t6 cut off '21-acre parcels .that are totally insid~ th~ MOD. -Ot~e~ise ~e..p~rcel is fected. Ms. Scala then showed a map of a pa~qel on top ~f Round Top Mountain, but ~he 'did not ikno~ t~e 6w~er's'name.' 'The' e~ire but the entire area out~ide the ridge ~r~a app~a~s to be 25 pe~ent slopes. In that case,'the'~-~d~r would 'have th& right' to build one house on the ridge. Building two houses would require a' special %u~e permit. Mr. Bowexwaan asked how many rights exist for tibet property2 'MS. S'dala repfie~ 'that she did not know, but she guessed it had five'd~ve!op~n~ parcels'[ -Th~ ten'owner could not build on.t~e steep slopes, but could buil~ AugUst 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) ' ~.,-~ ~2~,.~? ;.,.:~ ,. ~ '~ multiple houses on top, if he has building sites. Mr. Martin said that meant the l~ndowners could, at this time, build on as many sites for which he has building sites and development rights. Mr. Bowerman added the Landowner could do an RPD. Ms. Scala said the area down below would then likely be put into the easement,- becauSe it is unbuildable, and then he could possibly cluster the houses. He would sDill require building sites for each house, and a minimum of two acres for each house. If the ordinance is adopted, by-right he would have the right to build one house. Mr. Perkins said if there was one parcel to the west that was off 25 percent slopes, and it was divided off, he could build there. Ms~ scala said the entire area is 2S percent slopes. Mr. Martin said this meant this landowner's rights could be reduced from eight to nine possible sites to one site, if the special use permits were denied. Mr. Bowerman said the ~andowner could still do a rural sul)division on the top. Ms. scala said that would depend on how many building sites he has. He would be required to ~et a special use permit for all but one house. Without an RPD, he would have to cut off 21-acre parcels, so he could possibly build five lots. Mr. Bowerman said he would need drainfields and water. Ms. Thomas said ~he topography may !i~it building sites in that location anyway. Ms. scala said if the landowner developed five lots, he would have to get either a state ~r private road approved. Ms. Scala said the owner of the Rosemont subdivision is concerned. He would current!ybe allowed to build one house on the property, which is eight acres. Most of his property is in the ridge area, and he wanted to know if he could build on the ridge. Ms. Scala researched the matter and said the area off the ridge is nearly all on 25 percent slopes. Therefore he could still build one house in the ridge area, as he can do now. Ms. Julia Campbell owns 45 acres on Lewis Mountain, which' is zoned R-1. It is in the growth area, and most of it is on .25 percent slopes. If there is 'public water and sewer, she is'not required =o have a 30,000 square foot building site. There are few building sites available. She has about 13 acres outside the MOD, which would not be affected. She could build on that if she has the buiIding sites available. There may be one site in the MOD outside the ridge area that could be built by-right. Therefore if the MOD is put in place, she would have to get a special use permit in'order to build any more houses. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Campbell ~ould ask for a special use permit in the R-1 to cluster houses under existing regulations. Ma. Scala she could cluster in R-l, but would still n~ed to have building s~tes ~ilabte. Mr. Bowerman said she could use her division rights on the ridge by coming in with a subdivision. Mr. Keeler said she does not h~ve division rights; this is R-1 density. In the urban residential districts, a developer has the choice of a conventi6nal or clustered development. Under clustered development, 2S percent of the site musu go into open space. Therefore, she would have cluster de~e!0pment available to her, requiring 30,000 square foot building sites. Mr. Bowerman said she could ~ave the open space because of the 25 p-erc~T"slope'~ on the downside. Mr. Keeler said this is the urban area. There is no distinction made between critical slopes in rural and urban area applications. The County has been more receptive to waive them in ~rowth areas. Mr. Davis said the draft ordinance does not address this'situation, for a special use permit, because it speaks in terms of development rights, and there are no development rights on R-1 property. Unless the orS~n~nce is modified ~o recoup density, Ms. Campbell would be prevented from having further development on the ridgetop unless it is the first ho~se. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible ' tl~at one scenario is better t3aan another, for r~asons the Board has not even considered. Mr. Davis said the Board may want to allow zoDing other than to recoup its densit~byspecial use permit, since that would be consistent with what is proposed in the RAdistrict. Ms.. Scala said there are few mountains in the growth areas. The con, nitres reviewed this request and thought the mountains in ~rowth areas should be treated the same as those in the RA. Ms. Scala said Mr. ~erry Fisher's lot on Heard's Mountain lies entirely in the MOD. There is significant high elevation, and a lot of critical slopes in the area, so building is limited under the current ordinance. Mr. Fisher caxunot use all his development rights since there is a lack of building sites. One entire parcel is on 25 percent slopes, so he could only ge= one building permit there now. There is a six-acre parcel wi~h the same situation. He would need to obtain a special use permit in order to build on the ridge. He could develop small or large areas clown lower, if he h~s development rights. Some other lots have two and three development rights, so he could develop (Page 29) ~-,..~?:~.~?,~:~.~.~ .... -.,."..'.'.?.:,' -. ... .. three 21-acre parce~ cn.eac~. One_pa~ce~ has e~ong~building sites to ~tilize three building si~s outside the ridge area. 'if he wanted'to build inside the ridge area, she 'thought there might be three building sites, but he would need. to obtain a special use permit. Mr. PisSer has development potential outside ~he ridge ~rea. Two parcels are ~imitedby steep slopes. One parcel goes ~ into-the ridge area. ~e wo%zld he allowed to build one house on that entire parcel, dnder the-pre~en~'?r~in~nce. M~. Scala said the next example, gn B~ok's' 'Blbow Mountain, is ~uge, and its ridge area is very flat. Parcel number four is on the ridge, so the owner would have the right to build one house on the ridge ~y-.right under the new ordinance. Right mow h~ would be allowed tq b~iid as.many h~uses as he has building sites, which ~ probably one. Mr. B°Werman. said-some parcels have more development rights tha~' they have building sites. Each'.site must be examined separately. MS. Scala said this'parcel' lies mostly on the ridge, but has some sites outside the ridge area. Ridge sites would req%lire a special use permit.. Access is another issue, if the owner wants to do a lot of division there'.. 'The..bi~gest parcel is limite~ by the ordinance because of the special use permit provision. Anything outside'the ridge area is a p~tential building site by-right. Mr. Marshall asked how the MOD will.fi~anc~al'ly impact individuals. Ms. Scala said some la~ldowners would be impacted more than others. Some could do a building site by-righ~ on a ridge now, but the new ordinance considers how it would impac~ the entire County's property values and environmental concerns. In the worst case, a landowner would have to get a special use permit to build on the ridge. Mr. Marshall asked if homeowners could be financially .compensated. Mr. Bowerman asked whether a landowner who has eight development rights, but only three building sites, could build thr~e sites now, if they are outside the 25 percent slopes. Ms. Scala said if the MOD is passed, it is conceivable a landowner would have three.bui%ding sites, and some could be recouped i~ the ridge area, if a~ argu/nen~ could be made that new lots would be created because they were lots'attached to the development. NLr. Bowerman said it is possible %uader the current ordinance, tlLat the landowrner could do ~re development on the ridge under rural area preserva- tion, 60 this is a mixed-hag, depending on the specific property, 'the Specific topography, the building sites on it, and the'existing division rights. Mr. Martin said this is not a mixed-bag, because mixed means "more or less", and he has only seen e~amples that show "the. same or less"". Mr: Marshall-saidMr. Fred 'Scott, Jr. had a'sUrVey done on his pr6perty by Shoffner Appraisal Company. Mr. Scott provided the Board a copy of the letter he received from Mr. Geoz~3e C. Shoffner.' Mr. Shoffner's findings were that the MOD.would have a significant impact on~tr-. ~cot~.'$ property, de~alu- lng it by $600,000. Ms. Humphris'said this is one person's opinion. She~ said Mr. Shoffner's letter'read, in pxrt, awere the MOD to be in effect, the land value would be its basic agricultural value, or about $1,035,000. Therefore, deducting the ';~fter value from the ,before' value, indicates a value loss of over $600,000". Ms. Humphris said the MOD w6uld:not return t~e'value' o~ th~ land to basic agriculture; it would still have devel6pm~t value. Mr. Scott said he does not believe i~ putting houses on the spine of a hill. He selected some obv£0us sites ~0r building sites. In every case~ if 'he wanted to develop;, he would wa~t to kee? the pastures free, and'put houses in the trees, still affording good views. Bach lot would be in the MOD and outside the MOD. Because of that, all 20 sites would have had to be moved from the obvious site ~own into w~at would be a m~re intrusively-viewed site. Mr. Davis sai~ 21-~cre sites'would not'have to be located lower. Mr.~Scott could put the houses exactly where he is prop0s~ng t~em,, even if the MOD is passed. ' Mr. :Bowez2man Said Mr. Scott could put 21-acre sites in ~he MOD~ even though'he has 21-acre sites outside the MOD. Mr. Perkins asked what'happens if a 21-acre lot is half in and half out of the MOD. Mr. Davis said if there is a building site outside the MOD, that .is where the house must be built. Mr. Shoffner ~aid when a new lot ~s.created in=6he MOD, it becomes discretionary as to the ~peoia~ use permit. 5tr. '~6werman. sa~d that 'is simply a 21-acre lo~ a~d ~oes not'require an special use'per,lit, Unless it is in the r~d~e' area. .Mr. Shoffner said some of Mr.' Scott's lots 66~1d fall in th~ ~icl~e area. Ms. Th~m~'~id if 'th& lots are ~[rawn"in6el!igent~y, they can all be drawr~w~thin the MQD ~nd~4r. Scott ca~ b~ild wherever he wants to.. ....- O00119 ~G~St.$, 1998 (Re~zlar Day*'Me~t-in~). Mr~ Bowerman said Mr Scott could use all his division rights up on ten-acre lots and leave all .the rest in open space a~.d. pasture. Mr. Shoffner said ~. Scott'would still n. eed to approach-~e Bo~d wi~a pl~. He suspecus a g~d deal of the ~!ue of Mr. Scott's l~d lies.in ~e 'ridge area. ~. Bowe~ re~ed.~. Shoffner t~t Mr. Sgg~t spid he ~d not ~t build ~ the ridge area. ~. Marshall. ~sked w~t .~i!l ~p~ if ~. S~ott decides =o sell ~s property. ~. Shoffner had stated t~t~ if ~. Scott Sold ~e property to someone else ~de~ the. new or~n~ce, he could lo~e $600,000. Ms. Tho~s said if somebody else p~c~ses-~e property ~d-does not use ~ood sense, cho0s~g to b~ld on ~he spine, t~t is a differ~t issue. ~. Shoffner said t~t creates hi~her..road uosts, but.hi~her.~l~es..for the lots. T~k~g this out to a five-year sell-out' period, and disco~t~g ~h~ preset v~ue, there will be some erosion of this property's. ~alue. ~. Shoffner.said if a lot is on top of the ridge, ea~ lot could e~sily be ~rth .$250,0~0. A lot with no views could sell at $90,000 and $130,000 per lo~, which i~ .roughly a difference of $50,00 ~d'$75,000. per lot, which is how ~e.$600,.000 :loss ~igure was derived. {Note: Mr. Bowe~n left the room at ~:46 D.~.) ~. Tho~s said ~. Shoffner ass~ed there will be only a~ricult~al use of the l~d if the MOD is passed. ~. Shoffner said ~. Scott has not yet dete~ned where ~e lots'are go~ to be used as bUildin~ sites. Ms. Hubris said Mr. Scott ~uld still be able to use all ~s development rights. (Note: Mr. Bowe~ retu~ed at ~:~8 ~.m.) ~. Shoffner said the special use p~t process is discretional. He is not comfortable ~th the fact ~t the sa~ folks' who ~re propos~ the MOD wo~d also a~iste~ the special use pe~ process. Ms. Thomas said sp~cia! ~e pe~its ~d the spine areas go to~ether, whe~eas.~e MOD ne~iy-created . tots do not ~ve to go t~ou~h the speci~ use pe~t process. Mr. Scott has enough lots ~t.a special'use pe~t ~ht never be needed at all, particu- larly if he does not wish to sell or dev~op the area' ~ the spine. Shoffner said there is no way uo ~ow w~t a pot~t~al burr might w~t to do with ~roperty. ~. Bowe~ said ~. Scott co~ p~t toget~r ~ s~vision with all the houses ~ top 0f the ridge. If ~t ~1~ is s~mitted ~d approved, he wo~d receive value 'fbr his property. The highest ~d best use fr~ a land spe~lato~;'s'point of ~iew is to ~se the.ridge t6p%[ The argum~'~is '%~ ~h~' MOD'c~ges ~e pot&nti~ ~ue of h{s'prop~rt~ ~s.'Tho~ said ~h~ll not be a $60O,000 loss, ~cause the !~ is ~'{~in~ to a~ri6ulturaI ~alue. A lot of the 21-acre lots will go on ~e ~llsides. The choic~ not ~o put process. ~. Scott said ~. 'Shoffner's let%er dem6nstr~tAs the i~act of movin~ the ho~es do~ to a lower area. .~ere ~d be $50,000 ~fference in ~e lot sizes. ~. ~omas sai~ if ~e'l~d is of o~y a~icult~al value, they are of no more v~ue.than they are as ~fined by Vi~a pot~ec~ic~ Institute when look~g at orchard I~d ~ ~e~rle Co~ty. ~. Martin said the Board has be~ ~min~n~ this specific case for ~ite some time now. ~e~one ~eds to a~ee to disagree with this particular appr~sal. ~. Bowe~ said t~' co~vers~'tion':~s flushed out the issues the Board ~s been talk~ ~out. ~. Perk,s said the discussion ~s been ~o=tai~ide, =d the Board is ~elliu~him t~t'he can buxld on ~e ~0~ta~n- side, he sees no reason for the MOD in the first place. ~r. Per~s. said there are other pepple 'from the .~1~ who would like to,.spea~. ~. 'T~mas s~id this was not a p~iie'h~ari~, m. m~t~:'said the Board sbuld'hold a p~lig hearing. ~.'~rshall mentioned~. Tom Olivier~d sen~ a letuer to all the Board me, ers.. '~. ~oms said it would help staff if the Bb~d told-~em what'the or--ce shoed look like before ~ey sp~ ~ lot 6f' time creating one. . .... - oOo .2o August 5, 3.998 (Reg~zlar Day Me'ting)'_ ~. ~rt~ said he did not ~hi~ ~he Board could reach, cons~sus on issue, ~d t~t, since the Bo~d is not ready for ~e section on const~ctive e~m~ts yet, it should be lefU out.. He does not like ~e way Section 30.8.~.C. (iii) was ch~ed to say, " .... ~e buil~ site of a proposed lot consist~t with the ~=~t of this section 30.8; ~d (iv) the building site meets the 'criteria of section 3i.2..4.1.", because he said there ~d never be a speci~ use pe~t ~der .~ose conditions. Mr. ~rs~ll said. he c~t suppor~ Section 30.8.4.a t~t rea~, ~No lot or parcel shall be entirely wi~n a. ridge area." Ms. H~p~is said there are provmsions for exceptions liste~ elsewhere ~ ~e docum~t. Ms. Tho~s said ~t is imporZ~t to avoid bein~ perceived as arbitral. She suggested rewdrd~g section 30.8.&.c. (iii)- to .state ~der w~t basis a spec'ial use pe~t would be ~iven. Mr. Matin said he did not th~ w~t was being suggested ~ that section would ever be approved. He would w~t to see a list of criteria spelled out. Ms. H~hris said ~e criteria for all special use pe~ts is already spelled out ~der section 31.2.4.1. Ms. Scala said if the Board did not t~ ~e ~tent of the ordin~ce was correct, the ~tire or~n~ce falls a~rt. . ~. ~rtin said if ~e Board is t~ing a~y a right as the result of the .MOD,' the ~vision right s~d not be held to st~dards as high'as the ~t~t of ~e ord~ce. Staff shoed continue to work on section 4.2.01. ~e Co~ty"s 'st~r~, in some' st~ces, re~ire road st~rds hi~her than ~oT's st~dards. Ms. ~o~s asked ~. ~rtin if removmng ~e reference ~o ~ra~ent in section 4.2.01.a, yet still re~irmn~ the 'slope to be st~ilized, would appease ~m. He replied, "Maybe." ~. Davis said the erosion control por=i0n of the Water ~otection Ordinance already re~ires st~ilization. In almost eve~ ~nst~ce the ~ineer~ Department's re~irem~t is t~t slopes be 2:1, if possible. T~s silly puus into the COde what ~e ~ractice is, ~d ~ilds in ~ exception t~t. says.' if someone c~ demonstrate to the satisfaction of the ~ineerin~ Depar~ent that i~ should be ~re th~ 2:1, ~e ~gineerin~ Department c~ approve ir. 'Mr. Keeler said .the introducto~ l~age is intended to rest¢ict '~is to ~treme cases. .The~e would have to be a vertical fall of ~eater ~ five feet on ~e ~ment ~fore t~s comes ~to play. He suggested ~e Board ~ght w~t to say the same thing ~out critical slopes. If someone is cons~ctin~ a drive~ay ~d does ncc ~xce~d a fi~e-f~ot 'vertical cut, the provisions do not 'apply. ~. ~we~ said road st~dards c~ be. applied. Co~y-wide.. .Ms. Scala said side slopes on ~e road ~d-the slope created wh~ bulling a buil~ pad d6 not recre'~y ~rade o~ the driveway. The sfde slopes:'mu~t ~e 2:1, as they are now, ~ al~st every .i~stance. Ms. Tho~s said. this puts ~e Engineer~ Depar~m~t' policy ~der the so~l Erosion Ordin~ce into this section ~f..~.Code,' but if it is removed, it is still..~o~ty polio. Mr. Da~s a~eed~ saying. ~e same pr~zsio~ could go ~der the erosion measures ~ the Water Protection Ordinance. or the S~division ~di~ce. However, since it applies to site plus ~d s~vision plus, it was. thought this Was ~e best place for it. ~. Martin said most of the ~eopl~ he ~s heard from feel' this is the most signifi~nt seqtio~ prgposed. One person said he ~o~d not be ~le to buiId on his site ~der these ~del~es. Mr. Davis said ~e '~eer~g Departm~ could review such a situation ~d waive ~e retirement. Ms. Scala said the forty-~oot ra~us ~ideline was removed, because it was for private roads o~y, ~d ~g~eer%~g Departm~t staff s~id the private roa~ s~da~ already ~e~s ~, ~ca~' ~hey use ~oT' s st~ds~ .~. Bowe~ asked Ms. Scala and ~. K~eler to ~lain the difference ~etween w~t the Cowry alrea~ ~s in the curm~t S~:divisi'on building site 7e~irem~ts, wa=er retirements ~d potential .~oad s~an~rds,' ~d ~e MOD. ~rther, he s~d there .are s~me bituations today Where develop- ~t riBh=s will be lost because of tdp~aphy ~ other existin~ sit~tions, just as' ~ey wo~d ~der the MOD' ~d the Mo~t~in~op P~t~ction '0rdin~ce If Someone c~ obta~ a special ~se pe~it ~der 'the' Mo~i~td~ Pr0~ec~ion ~nance, it is conceiv~le t~ey will put hduses'o~ E0pS of ridge l~es, because it ~y' ~e ~re s~ns~ edo~o~cally ~d aesthetically. The same c~ be d~e t~ay. 'If.a l~do~er c~ demonstrate, for ~xA~le', t~at he'~s six ~ildable !o~s, ~d he w~ts to use those six de~lopment rights, he c~ obta~ a speci~ use pe~it ~der the rural dezi~tio~ f?r c~s%~r~g. .~e asked w~t' is ~aine~ 'by a~ptin~ the MOD ove~ WhAt ~ Albany be 000~.~:1. August 5, 1998 (Regular Da~ M~eti~g) : (Page ~> .: -:'~ ..... ' ~.~.~.~ .~ ...../. 'MS. Scala said the'major effec.t Would be tha~.pr0posed, sites would fall under additional review if they are in a ridge area. There is currently no review. Mr. Bowerman said if a la~downer wants to do an RPD on top of a ridge, moving som~ of his sites onto the ridge, and he wants'to cluster, there would be a specie1 use permit review. MS. Scala ~aid when doing an RPD, staff _ recommends the rural preservation tract C0~tain. the resources the County is trying to protect. Mr. Bowez~an asked about the lowlands. Ms. Scala said she.~a~ked to someone from'Edg~i!l,~ who wanted to know if he would be prohibited from dluste~ing under the MOD. Ms. S~ala sai~ there ~s an. historic landmark on that property, which'~s a working farm'2 She te~d h~m he could present his case, and might have a~ase for clustering ih. the MOD. Ms. S~ala said the point of RPD is to protect resources. R~D's-require a special use permit if they exceed 20 tots; otherwise they simply go to the Commission, if they meet certain desigu.'cri~eria. The main effect of the ordinance'is to lower development in'the ridge areas, pushing it do~ the mountains somewhat.' If done the way the Co~amittee suggested, it ~y reqUire that.small'lots be used ouuside the MOD and only 21-acre lots be used in the MOD. Mr. Bowerman said this could re,ult.]in d~rama~i~ roads b~ing built to the mid-mountain sites. M~i Scala said i~ would npt impose'gradient s~andards. If constructed embankments are done, it would require stable side slopes on the driveways and building pads, and the Water Protection Ordinance would come .into play. A land d~sturbing activity, as defined in the MOD area, is au 2,500 square fee~, as opposed to 10,000 in the. rest of the County. -Mr. Bo~erman asked why it is not e~acted in a County-wide ordinance, for any r~ral area with more th~n a 2S percent slope. Mr. Davis replied, "You could." Mr. Bowerman said road standards, embankments, and access issues could also be addressed in such ~n ordinance. Ms. Scala said, ..in ~elation to 'erosion, th~ MOD would also encourage the Engineering Department to ask for a plan, not just an a~reement. Fir. Bowerman suggested doing that. County-wide. MS. Scala said the County should, encourage.. this 'in areas ~here there are s~eep slopes andre b~tte~ chance of soil erosion problems. Ms. Thomas said that is what would be put in place now if the Board only adopts the map. Ms. Scala said it would not currently require a plan in every case, but'it points out areas where soil erosion could occur and gives the Engineering Department justification to ask for a plan. Mr. Bowerman said if the County-had a Soil'Protectio~rl~District, for areas'where erosion is identified 'as a significent problem, it Could choose ~o apply these standards, whether they are lowlands or mountains. Mr. Davis said' the Chesapeake Bay Act already authorizes the Board to do that based on soil types and topography. 'Mr. Bowerman'~aid the Board is trying to protect the resou~:ces of the County and 'encourage ~siti~ ~se of ~e There are'lots..of ~equirements already inclosed. There are lots of critical issues that aris~ when someone'brings in a subdiv~s'ion plat 'that ~r~ examined. If the'CoUnty can deal with th~' ancillary issues'of site dev~l°Pm~nts, regardless of location, a lot of the problems ~o~ld be solved by doing the~ County-wide. Mr~ D~vis said one impact of'the Ordinance~i~ tb~t it'requires, where an existing or:fut~e lot is both inside and outside the MOD,' the l~ndo~ner to build outside the MODi This forc~ sites.to'~'i~6~d down'the mountain. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens when &cces:s to the s'it~ is the critical part. Disturbance because'of'the drivgway coul~ 6r~ate'dama~e to the land. ' .......... Mr. Keeler said t~e maj o~ thing 'the ~OD does is to re~late the" ridge area more than 'what is' currently done. Ordinances are already in place to .: take care of-most things. Mr. Martin said this 'imposes a lot of. rules and regulations, as wel% as layers of bureaucracy .a~d pos~ibl~ more expense~ It m~y accompiish s0~thing, but be q~estione~ at what.~ost. Mr~ Bowerknan'sa~d if the Coo/lty Can already accomplish thi~ in a-different'fashion, perhaps Board shouid s~ren~then ordinances already one. The drawback is that it could impact all homeowners in terms of coet. Ms. Scala said adopting the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates it is important to protect-the mountains. If there are ot~er.things .the Ordinance addresses, but that should be stren~ened, the Board could.address them separately.. .: .. .-.:. . ~. '~ -,.. .~ · ~-.- .~.. :.. Mr.' Bowerman said'there are driveway 9rgsion p~oblems'i~' Mi!l' C~eek. Streng=hening'~e~ireraents in that area would increase costs to..bui!ders. ~'~'"' ':::":" ~ " 'O00:L~ Augusg 5, 1998 (Re~Alar. Day. (Pa~e 33) '-'; ..... -'(:~;.~.~' ~ .' - - '- · · . . - . . Mr. Davis said the Co~y Csuid stren~ r~ad re~igem~ts. There are way to deal with'the s~e issues. Mr. Bowe~n said ~e .Board could ~d up raising the cost of dev~opm~t, which ~ais~ the 'co~t of hous~g, regardless of where the site is or w~t is berg built on it, but the ~viro~ent wo~d be prese~ed. 'He. said there, nee~ to be mo~e.~s~slon on the s~ject, he su~ested ~other ~rk session. Mr. Perkins said there w°~d need to be ~ ~ception for a s~le- d~lling on each parcel-;" wi~ no road st~dards, or st~rds t~t are enviro~t~l~ fri~ier ~an the proposed Co~ty s~rds. ~. Davis said this already ~ists. Ms. scala ~aid someone.o~y' ~s to ~ain a b~ilding' pe~it tn order to b~ild a 'single-family 'h6me~ ~d a special use ~e~it if buildim~ t~ee houses. ~ ~. Rerkins said he does not 't~ ~he ord~n~ce is needed. Mr2 Keeler discussed the regulations being C0%~n. tyLwide. The County adopted private', road'~tand&~ds. ~n '197'8, and '~he issue is ~xamined by a com~ttee every five years. The last committee said the County still ~eeds private roads in rural areas, for .environmental reasons. There are two sides to that issue.. Firbt, private roads have more stringent standards ~ public roads. Second, this c6uld open up other areas that could nog be developed if the County Simply required public roads. He does not know how the County can be more sensitive to the terrain with any design standard, yet preclude development areas, that are sensitive to development. Mr. Bowerman said the pri%-ate road standards ~sed are VDoT's standards. Mr. 'Tucker said the Board is wrestling with these same issues. W~at is before the Board now has been changed significantly. A lot of regulations. already in place take care of many of the issues raised. The significant change is in the ridge area. .The Board needs tc decide if it is significant enough to adopt an ordinance, or whether there are other ways of ad~lressing these issues. He su~ested the Board might need to reidentify what the charge is to the committee. Ms. Thomas suggested the Board meet with the committee. Mr. Martin Suggested using a p~blic hearing to get feedback, from the public about' changes they. ~uld like to make to what has been pr6pc~ed. Mr. Davis ·said the Ordinance has not been c~anged since June 16, 19~8, except for one change recommended by the Committee, and the Board already held the public hearing. Ms. Scala said cha~.ges were made by the Task Force. Ms. Thomas said those changes ere suggestions, but they were not·passed by the Commission. ~Mr. Davis said the public may now be more aware Of the require- men= for a.special'use permit. Mr..'Mar~in'said he' would"iik& t6 hear' from the Task Force. Mr. Tucker said the.Board could hold an open house, so that the public can see. ~.s~..~les.and taIk to staff2 Ms..Hu~p..hr!~ ~ .=~re..%S no point 'in goin~ tO a pubIic b~aring,''be6ause there is nothing-new to'present. She said it would be helpful to have an open house f6rum. MS. Thomas said it is unfa{r to 'ask .staff to work on something the Board will never pas~. If there are certain things ~hat make it impossible for a Board member to vote on it, she felt they should make it clear. ~r. Bowerman said without the special use ~r~i%' p~0v~ions~added to w/~at is'before the Board, as su~est.ed~ b~t n6t' recommended by 'th~ C~mmission, he does not thirLk this is a workable ordinance. Mr. Martin said the special us~ permit was a ~ompromise between taking away ~ights, while prqviding the special use permit process so that a landowner can at lea~' ask for it. He s~id someone should'look at all the options and suggest the best place build. Without:that fleXibility, the ordinance ~does not work. H~ w0~ld not suppOrt theordinance'~ith6ut it. 'M~. 'Davis':said'the alternative 'W'~U~d be to have by-right deve%0pment On the ridge area ~ith6ut a special use p~rn~i~, whereas this ordinance restricts development. on the ridge unless'tSere is a spec~kl use permit]' : '~" Mr. 'TUcker said it ~pp~ared t~a~ some 'Board ~r~b~rs"wou!d prefer that no development rights be lost. A special use permit does not protect all development 'rights.' He added ~at j~q't havi~g..dsvelopment ~kgHgs:d0~s not guarantee a lando~h~r will ha~e'Suilding si~s4 ..... '" ..... "' .... Ms. Thomas'said the special use pe~mit'p~6~'~"is not't~ste~ ~ public. 'They'~o h6~ ahlnk the Board wo~ld ever 'sa~ ~uilding a sate on top the mountain ridge is the best p%ace to 'Suild..Mr. P~k~ns~aid th~s is only an issue if there are three houses or more. 'Ms. Thomas thinks the special use August 5, 1998 {Regular Day Meeffing) per,it is flex~le to a'v~riety of r!d~e~to~ sit~s. She thins the ordi~ce is fair ~d effective. Mr. Davis'identified two questions for the Board: l) do you wish to restrict ridge top construction to one house with few exceptions, and 2} do you want building slt~s to be moved dCwn.the-mountains, if available. If the Board does not Support'these ideas, the ordinance falls apart. Mr. Marshall said if development rights are .limited to' one per person on the ridge top,' the Board is t~king away development rights. Mr. Davis said the landowner stitl would have reasonable use of his property, but his property~ht b~ devalued if he is' not permitted to develop his property the way he wants to. The ~pecial use permit~ allows someone ~o'.be'assured they do not lose development rights if they meet certain Criteria. There is no legal taking of anyone's property in what the ordinance proposes. The basic premise is there is not goimg to be much development.on the ridgetops unless there are reasons which justify it as more appropriate.than in another location. Mr. Bowerman said that is where t~e Board was on June 17, 1998, with the special use permit. Mr. Martin said, based on t'odmy's discussion and public input, the Boar~ made a commitment, to have a public hearing oh the li~ting ordinance. At this meeting the Board passed .the CPA. He su~ested seeSng what the CPA does and letting the' rest ride for now. Ms. Thomas suggested Se~ing if the Board is interested in limiting residential development on ridgetops. That is the defizLing q~estion. If there is not a majority a~reement, the Board should not lead the public on with this any further. Mr. Marshall said he does not want to take development rights a~ay from current homeowners, as that reduces the value of the land. 'Mr. Bowerman said the Subdivision Ordinance already limits development of mountaintops. If the Board is interested in havin~ sites developed in the best way.possible, and the ~pecial use permit process allows that to be done, the Board could look at the sites and evaluate'the criteria. Mr. Marshall said people who want nice views are not payir~ taxes. The tahdowners wh~ own that.land are paying the taxes, and everyone wants ~'hem continue footing the bill.' Mr. Bowerman disagreed. Ms. Thomas said the Board could do a lot-more than what they are doing now to restrict development. 'MS. Hu~phris said th9 Board members should'no%' j~st throw up their hands and look at this in another year, just because it is difficu~t. Th~ special use permit process makes the MOD workable. This is not a taking~of property. She said she believed the Board was c16se to having something that was acceptable. Mr. Bowerma~'asked~if Mr. Perkins wa~ts to ma~a~e deve~0pmen~ O~ ridge tops for each individual mountain. Mr. Perkins said every moLultain a/ad parcel is different. There are guidelines already protecting the ridges. In many cases, the ridge is the only piece to build.' He said if an owne~ wants to build on the ridge l%ne, he should b~ able to do'that by-right. 'Someone can apuly for special use permits if they want'to build m°r~ than One house.. On the 'other hand, the ridge is not always't~e'best pi'ace t~ build a"hC~e'. There are a lot of problems there, due tC the wihd. There are'fe~ where you are going't~'g~t a $~0 degree pan~ramic ~eaut'iful view ~11 th~ 'time', so often it is be~t to place the building site further down. This can be muck friendlier to the environment, as well. He felt the Board should move forward, but he did no~ know how. ' '~ ~ ' '" ~ ': (Note: Mr. Martin left the ~oom at 5:08 Mr.. David Benish, who said he wished .~q ~peak from ~h~ p~spe0tive of ma~agin~ a'work program, said the Board .adopted th~ CPA,' ahd staff'hoped to 'be ready to move forward with'the natural environmc~= sedtibn'of the Comprehen- sive Plan. NoW that the CPA has been adopted, staff has a clear idea of the Board's intentions. Ninety-n~ne percent '~'f'the"m0untain~ are in-the rural areas, the remaining section of the comPreken~ive Plan tO ~e"~giewed by staff. He sa~d ~.. Bowerman's suggestions could be c~side~ed ~n th.~ that evaluation. There are gomng no be some weighty topics in r~ral areas, based on the directives provided by the Board. Staff needs to move forward on the rural afeard'and the~ rela~e'~o the mountain'~'ct~on. H~ s~Id wants staff tO look at ot~r ways to imple~nt'mQ%lntain protection, that can :-'- --: ~,"~ .... :-~ ~-'.:.:.i~:i.:~'i~ .... -. 000~.24 .. August 5, 1998 (I~e~/l!ar Day:.?eet~g)" (Pa~e' 35} :_' '.... - ;~:.~:~...' . '.~..... be done.' Howeyer, ~f they ~t '~aff ~o'lb'o~ 'at ~o~6 issues, he suggests the Board t~le th~ ~ssue 'a~d discuss the '~a~s in' the centre of all ~e ~e~ to be ~de to ~he r~al 'ar~as~ : ' ' Mr. B£11 Mawyer, Director of Engineering, ~aid the Erosion Control program exempts foresting'an~ag~riculture. This presents a problem. If someone wants to build a home on a rural prOPerty, they forest it first, then build a road, and then, at'a later date, apply for a building permit. This means there are no driveway standards. Mr. Perkins said it does not matter, if this i~ for a single dwelling anyway, unless 2:I slopes are an issue. Mr. Mawyer said this is deklt with as an erosion control issue Under either ordinance. The erosion control program is moving forward. In the past 14 mo~hs his department Moved from having one inspector to. three, meaning there are more issues that can be dealt with than in the past. (Note: Mr; Martin returned at 5:13 p.m.) Mr. Marshall Suggested t~e Board table the ordinance. Mr. Benish said staff still needed a consensus' from the Bbard as to hew to move into discus- sions on Changes in the rural'.areas and the impact of mountain development. He Suggested that some Board members and sUaff member~ could work together. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission had a meeting, and were strongly criticized. The Board was criticized when they discussed the special use permit aspect of this issue, because people perceive it as taking away their right to ~do what they wann with their moUntaintops. He said it would be helpful to have staff incorporate mounEains.into the total picture of 'the rural areas to see whether it has any effect. Ms. Thomas said staff will come back to the Board and say that mountainous areas are different in certain ways. Mr. Bowerman said what the ·Board wants ~one in the mountains might be the very same thing they want done in ~he bottom lands. Mr. Tucker asked what the effect would be if the Board took no action at this meeting. Mr. Davis said today was just a wor~ session. The Ordinance had been deferred to a different date. If t~e Board took nQ action at this time, it would remain deferred. Ms. Thomas said the Board has other concerns that are addressed by the ordinance. Therefore, she is frustrated. Mr. Marshall said he will not support the MOD until landowners are compensated for the loss of development rights, and the Board is sure of exactly what is needed. It was the consensus.of the Board to have staff examine mountain protection issues when developing ~ecommendations to'the Boa/~ on the'rural Mr. Benish advised t~e Board this work will take more than a couple of weeks. It will take staff a couple of months before they are ready to make a presentatiou to the ~ommi~si~n. '' ' '' { ...... ' ' A~enda Item No. 16. Appointments. '- Mr. Bowerman'moved that the Board ~pp~int Mr. Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area'Board on Aging, with'said term to expire on March ~1, 2000'. Mr. Martin moved that the Board reappoin~Mr2 Jerry' Jones to the Jordon De~e!opment Corporation, with said term t6 eXPire on August 13, 1999, and' Mr'. Ken Clarry to the Industrial Development Authority, wiht said'te~m to eXPire on'January 19~' 2002. 'Mr. Bowerman:se~onded. the motions. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. H~mphris, Mr. Marshail,'Mr. M~i~, Mr. 'Perkins, Ms."Thomas~a~d Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None.· ' ' '' ' ..... A~enda Item'~Nc. 17.' Other Matters not LiS~'d on'the Agenda' f~o~ ~h~' Board. 'Ms. 'Thomas 'sa~ s~e"l&arned ~ l~t b~ a~t~{di~g~;~l~e National Association of Counties (NACo) conference and w~uld report to the Board at the next Board meeting.